U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) & MAJOR PARTNERS'
LESSONS LEARNED FROM IMPLEMENTING EPA's PORTION OF THE
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT:
FACTORS AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGRAM SUCCESS
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE
SEPTEMBER 2013
EPA-100-K-13-008
PREPARED FOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
WASHINGTON, DC
-------
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study could not have been possible without the help and cooperation of the many
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees at Headquarters and Regional
offices who agreed to be interviewed, state staff and funding recipients who
participated in lively focus group sessions, and the many other EPA and state staff who
graciously provided answers to follow-up questions after the interviews and focus
groups were completed. The Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Team
appreciates the time given to share experiences beyond all the other audits and
questions. The recollections of those 'working in the trenches' during the intense period
of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) implementation were invaluable in
this study.
September 2013
-------
This page intentionally blank.
September 2013
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
PURPOSE 1
METHODOLOGY 1
FINDINGS 1
Benefits, Outcomes and Lessons Learned 2
Recommendations 2
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY 1
1.2 BACKGROUND 2
1.2J Categorical versus Non-categorical Projects 3
1.3 STUDY QUESTIONS 3
SECTION 2. METHODOLOGY 7
2.1 EXISTING DOCUMENT AND DATABASE REVIEW 7
2.2 REVIEW AND CATEGORIZATION OF CLEAN WATER AND DRINKING WATER PROJECTS 7
2.3 STATE FOCUSGROUP DISCUSSIONS AND FILE REVIEWS 9
2.4 DATA COLLECTION CHALLENGES 9
SECTIONS. FINDINGS 11
3.1 FINDINGS FROM EXISTING STUDIES AND INFORMATION SOURCES 15
3.1.1 Industrial Economics, Inc. (2011) 16
3.1.2 The Center for Neighborhood Technology (2010) 17
3.1.3 Environmental Finance Center at Syracuse University (2010) 17
3.1.4 Asertti 18
3.1.5 State Intended Use Plans 19
3.2 FINDINGS FROM EPA DATABASE ANALYSIS AND CATEGORIZATION OF CLEAN WATER AND DRINKING
WATER PROJECTS 19
3.2.1 Results of DWSRF Project Analysis 20
3.2.2 Results of CWSRF Project Analysis 20
3.3 FINDINGS FROM Focus GROUP STATES 21
3.3.1 Iowa 22
3.3.2 Louisiana 25
3.3.3 Montana 27
3.3.4 New York 29
3.3.5 North Carolina 31
3.3.6 Oklahoma 34
3.4 SAIC OBSERVATIONS OF GREEN PROJECT TYPES (CATEGORY) ACROSS ALL STATES 36
3.4.1 Water Meter Projects 36
3.4.2 CWSRF Pipe Projects 37
September 2013
-------
3.4.3 Wastewater Treatment Projects 38
3.4.4 Stormwater Projects 38
3.4.5 Drinking Water Storage Projects 39
3.5 SUMMARY OF BENEFITS/OUTCOMES 39
3.6 SUMMARY OF GREEN PROJECT RESERVE PROGRAM SUCCESSES 43
3.7 SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED 45
3.8 RECOMMENDATIONS 46
REFERENCES 47
TABLE 1. STUDY QUESTIONS FOR THE GREEN PROJECT RESERVE STUDY 4
TABLE 2. CATEGORIZATION OF PROJECTS IN THE EPA DATABASES 8
TABLE 3. Focus GROUP PARTICIPANTS (FUNDING RECIPIENTS IN PARENTHESES) AND PROJECTS 9
TABLE 4. STUDY QUESTIONS IN THE GREEN PROJECT RESERVE STUDY AND BIG PICTURE FINDINGS 12
TABLES. ARRA SPENDING ON DRINKING WATER GREEN PROJECTS BY PROJECT CATEGORY (ENTIRE U.S.) 20
TABLE 6. SPENDING ON CLEAN WATER GREEN PROJECTS BY PROJECT CATEGORY (ENTIRE U.S.) 21
TABLE?. IOWAGPRPROJECTS 23
TABLES. SELECTED GPR PROJECTS FOR IOWA 24
TABLE 9. LOUISIANA GPR PROJECTS 25
TABLE 10. SELECTED GPR PROJECTS FOR LOUISIANA 26
TABLE 11. MONTANAGPR PROJECTS BY CATEGORY 27
TABLE 12. SELECTED GPR PROJECTS COMPLETED BY MONTANA 28
TABLE 13. NEW YORK GPR PROJECTS 30
TABLE 14. SELECTED GPR PROJECTS FOR NEW YORK 31
TABLE 15. NORTH CAROLINAGPR PROJECTS 32
TABLE 16. SELECTED GPR PROJECTS FOR NORTH CAROLINA 33
TABLE 17. OKLAHOMA GPR PROJECTS 34
TABLE 18. SELECTED GPR PROJECTS FOR OKLAHOMA 35
TABLE 19. SUMMARYOF BENEFITS BY CATEGORY 39
September 2013
-------
FIGURE 1. CHARLES CITY GREEN PERMEABLE PAVING PROJECT 24
FIGURE 2. LEWIS AND CLARK SUBDIVISION MAIN REPLACEMENT 29
FIGURES. RED LODGE SOLAR ARRAY UNDER CONSTRUCTION 29
FIGURES 4 AND 5. BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS OF TORRENCE CREEK 34
FIGURES 6 AND 7. BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS OF REPAIRED SITE ON ILLINOIS RIVER 36
APPENDIX 1: ELIGIBILITY FOR GREEN PROJECT RESERVE OF SOME COMMON CATEGORIES
OF PROJECTS APPENDIX 1-1
APPENDIX 2: CWSRF AND DWSRF GREEN PROJECTS BY Focus GROUP STATE APPENDIX 2-1
APPENDIX 3: GREEN PROJECT RESERVE GUIDE FOR STATE Focus GROUPS APPENDIX 3-1
APPENDIX 4: DESCRIPTIONS OF DATA FIELDS USED IN TABLES APPENDIX 4-1
September 2013
-------
This page intentionally blank.
September 2013 iv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE
This study seeks to capture the benefits and outcomes related to the Green Project Reserve requirements
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds allocated to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF and DWSRF)
programs. EPA and states had to target almost $1.2 billion for green projects - one of the largest single
goals that EPA ever had to meet.
METHODOLOGY
EPA contracted with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and their subcontractor
Toeroek Associates, Inc., to review the benefits and outcomes of the green projects undertaken to fulfill
the Green Project Reserve requirements for the CWSRF and DWSRF programs under ARRA. 'Green'
projects include those that deal with green infrastructure, water efficiency, energy efficiency, or those
that are environmentally innovative. The objective of the review was to gather and report on information
related to both primary and secondary outcomes of State Revolving Fund (SRF) Green projects. To achieve
this objective, the SAIC Team reviewed existing documents and information related to green projects;
reviewed existing EPA databases such as the CWSRF Benefits Reporting system (CBR) and the DWSRF
Project Benefits Reporting system (PBR); categorized clean water and drinking water projects; conducted
focus group discussions and file reviews in six states; and documented the results of these analyses.
Several challenges became evident as SAIC began collection and analysis of data for this study. ARRA did
not mandate that states collect data that would allow for measurement or documentation of primary or
secondary environmental benefits of completed green projects. In addition, the downloaded data that
SAIC received from the CBR and PBR databases represented only a snapshot of ARRA projects. Finally,
finding published data to enable SAIC to identify environmental outcomes was particularly difficult, as
completed projects had only been in operation for a few years at most.
FINDINGS
SAIC primarily based its analyses on perspectives from six state focus groups. SAIC was largely unable to
find existing studies that included quantitative analyses of environmental outcomes of green ARRA
projects. The one exception is a draft partial analysis, conducted by Industrial Economics, Inc. (lEc), of
anticipated environmental benefits of ARRA-funded Green Project Reserve projects (GPR projects). The
authors of this study were only able to find data for about one third of the GPR projects. Similarly, a
review of EPA's CBR and PBR databases produced limited findings; data was not entered consistently, so
SAIC was unable to compare the amounts spent on different types of green projects.
The six state focus groups offered largely qualitative information on primary and secondary
environmental benefits of GPR projects. Participants noted that there was no documentation of
environmental benefits from ARRA-funded GPR projects nor was it requested or required by EPA, but all
of the state participants were able to identify some secondary outcomes during discussion sessions.
September 2013
-------
BENEFITS, OUTCOMES AND LESSONS LEARNED
SAIC found that the majority of GPR projects undertaken by the CWSRF and DWSRF programs across the
nation involved the installation or replacement of water meters (113 projects), the rehabilitation or
replacement of leaking pipes (41 projects), the construction of wastewater treatment plants (183
projects), and stormwater management (194 projects). SAIC's review of these projects and those
discussed during the state focus groups yield several anecdotal observations of primary and secondary
environmental benefits, including:
Improved overall environmental awareness of project area residents.
Increased community pride, enhanced property values, and overall neighborhood beautification.
Increased efficiency in water meter reading operations, which also results in less vehicular
emissions, better use of water utility staff, improved customer service, and increased funding for
utilities to use in other areas of water line maintenance.
Large cost savings to municipalities due to reduction in energy consumption by water treatment
and distribution activities, allowing for investment in other community improvement projects.
Increased innovative attitude of municipalities and engineers, and a desire to pursue future
green projects.
In addition to these environmental benefits, SAIC observed several notable lessons learned, including:
ARRA projects that were categorically 'green' did not require a business case to document
expected environmental benefits, because the primary benefits were assumed.
Existing project priority scoring mechanisms in Intended Use Plans (ILJPs) were not designed to
capture green project benefits that would address specific green priorities.
The short time frame available to EPA to develop ARRA guidance for the state SRFs may have
resulted in less than optimal guidance in some areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on its interpretations of the data and perspectives shared by study participants, SAIC formulated
several overall recommendations for EPA to consider:
Require business case documentation quantifying primary and secondary environmental benefits
for all completed projects, which would be useful capturing real world results that could be used
as the basis for planning elsewhere.
Track and evaluate costs and secondary benefits.
Develop guidance on assessing secondary benefits of green projects.
Foster teaming between states, nonprofits, and businesses to leverage the ability to document
green project benefits.
Continue to support Green Project Reserve requirements for SRF projects, since they have raised
the awareness of green alternatives with state water planners.
September 2013
-------
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
In February of 2009, Congress passed ARRA, aimed primarily at making new jobs and saving old ones,
stimulating economic activity and long-term growth, and fostering accountability and transparency in
government spending. Of the $787 billion dollars authorized in the Recovery Act, EPA was given $7.2
billion. EPA distributed the majority of its ARRA funds to states in grants and contracts to support clean
water and drinking water projects, diesel emissions reductions, leaking underground storage tank
cleanups, Brownfields development and Superfund cleanups. This was a massive undertaking for EPA. The
administration of the funds, which were to be injected into the economy at an unprecedented pace,
required that EPA develop or revise policies, processes and automated information systems. In the fall of
2011, EPA tasked SAIC, and its subcontractor Toeroek Associates, Inc., to design and conduct a study to
examine several components of EPA's implementation of ARRA. The SAIC Team studied three
management topics - Cost Estimating processes, Funds Management processes and Systems
enhancement and development. The Team also looked at three topics geared more towards outcomes
than management processes. These include the Green Project Reserve initiative, the use of ARRA funds to
spur Innovative Technologies and the use of ARRA funds to Leverage Local Economic Benefits. After
completion of the research phase, the SAIC Team produced a series of six reports, each covering one of
the six topics noted above. The Team also prepared a separate overarching summary report with an
Executive Summary, containing highlights of each of the six reports, as well as a description of the goals
and methodology for the entire study.
1.1 PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY
This report describes a review of green initiatives' results for ARRA-funded projects. ARRA included
specific requirements and set-asides for green initiatives and projects, the largest being the requirement
that 20 percent of the Recovery Act's Drinking Water and Clean Water SRFs) be used for 'green' projects.
This funding is referred to as the 'Green Project Reserve'. In dollar terms this meant that EPA and states
had to target almost $1.2 billion dollars for green projects - one of the largest single goals that EPA ever
had to meet.
EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) contracted with SAIC to review green initiatives' results.
This specifically included the requirement to "gather and report on information related to successes,
strategies and lessons learned." However, EPA OCFO subsequently found that other entities in EPA had
already tasked other organizations and contractors with identifying green initiatives' results. When SAIC's
study began, OCFO anticipated that several of these studies could provide relevant background and input
for SAIC's study. Thus EPA directed SAIC to submit a work plan that focused on identifying 'secondary'
benefits and outcomes of green projects using DWSRF and CWSRFdata. In this report, 'primary' benefits
are considered to be those which the project was specifically designed to accomplish; for instance, the
primary benefit of GPR projects that involve land application of treated wastewater is often to eliminate
direct discharges to waterways. Primary benefits are those typically cited in business cases. (A business
case documented how a project qualified to be "green" under ARRA.) In contrast, a 'secondary' benefit of
land application of wastewater is that such projects may result in increased stream flows that could
benefit certain aquatic organisms at times of low stream flow (as applied water runs off the land and into
small streams adjacent to fields).
September 2013
-------
During the course of SAIC's investigations, SAIC discovered that only limited information on 'secondary'
benefits was available. There was no detailed information or data in the clean or drinking water databases
that would enable a quantitative analysis of the benefits of green projects. In addition, SAIC found no
documentation that listed or compared primary versus secondary benefits of such projects. This appears
to have been related to the need to put all ARRA SRF projects under contract within 1 year, which left
little time for the states and EPA to negotiate or plan for data fields capturing actual "green" cost savings.
Identifying and understanding different types of Green Project Reserve benefits is essential to a full
recognition of the value of GPR projects, and the impacts of EPA's ARRA spending in addressing
environmental problems. The manner in which SAIC addressed this challenge is discussed in Section 2 of
this report.
Testimony to Congress by EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe in April 2013 makes clear that funding
green projects through the SRFs is an ongoing agency priority. He stated, "Ensuring that federal dollars
provided through the State Revolving Funds support effective and efficient system-wide planning remains
a priority for EPA. The FY 2014 budget request includes $1.1 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund and $817 million for the Drinking Water SRF. This money will also assist EPA efforts to expand and
institutionalize the use of up-front planning that considers a full range of infrastructure alternatives like
'green' infrastructure, so that the right investments are made at the right time, and at the lowest life-cycle
cost. This budget request will allow the SRFs to finance approximately $6 billion in wastewater and
drinking water infrastructure projects annually." (Perciasepe, 2013). It is a goal of this review to provide
information useful to this ongoing process.
1.2 BACKGROUND
For the purposes of ARRA, GPR projects are described in Attachments of an EPA memo on awarding
water quality management funds appropriated by ARRA (Suzanne Schwartz, 2009):
Green infrastructure projects include a wide array of practices that manage precipitation in
order to maintain and restore natural hydrology by infiltrating, evapo-transpiring, and capturing
and using stormwater. In the context of DWSRF, green infrastructure consists of site-specific
practices, such as green roofs and porous pavement at drinking water utility facilities. In addition
to managing rainfall, these green infrastructure technologies can simultaneously provide other
benefits such as reducing energy demands.
Water efficiency projects reduce water consumption. These projects include the use of improved
technologies and practices to deliver equal or better services with less water.
Energy efficiency projects reduce energy consumption. These projects include energy audits,
leak detection equipment, water pump system improvements or replacements, variable
frequency drives, on-site clean power for treatment systems, and replacement or rehabilitation
of distribution lines.
Environmentally innovative projects demonstrate new and/or innovative approaches to
managing water resources in a more sustainable way, including projects that achieve pollution
prevention or pollutant removal with reduced costs, and projects that foster adaptation of water
protection programs and practices to reduce climate change.
September 2013
-------
States applying for federal funding under either DWSRF or CWSRF must annually prepare and submit
Intended Use Plans (ILJPs). When the ARRA program began, states evaluated their existing lUPs to identify
green initiatives and projects that (1) appeared likely to qualify in whole or in part as GPR projects and (2)
met all eligibility requirements of the program. States could also solicit new projects for the Green Project
Reserve. If projects in a state's IUP did not contain qualifying projects or components with a total value
equal to at least 20 percent of the ARRA capitalization grant to the state, then the state was required to
make a timely and concerted solicitation for projects, with the objective of determining which qualifying
GPR projects it would include in its plan. CWSRF regulations required states to add any newly identified
green projects to their priority lists as well as their lUPs. States were prohibited from rejecting applicants
if, through that rejection, less than 20 percent of the appropriated funds were for GPR projects.
ARRA section 1602 requires that "recipients shall give preference to activities that can be started and
completed expeditiously, including a goal of using at least 50 percent of the funds for activities that can
be initiated not later than 120 days after... enactment" of ARRA. States implemented this preference
requirement by selecting ARRA funding for those projects that appeared to be able to start by June 17,
2009 (Schwartz, 2009).
1.2.1 CATEGORICAL VERSUS NON-CATEGORICAL PROJECTS
For both the CWSRF and DWSRF, projects classified as 'categorical' clearly meet the intent of GPR
projects. Other projects designated as 'non-categorical' may or may not meet the Green Project Reserve
requirements. Appendix 1 contains EPA's 2009 guidance for determining which projects are considered
'categorical.' For any non-categorical project to be counted toward meeting ARRA's 20 percent
requirement for GPR, project files must contain documentation of the project (often called a business
case) or project component that was judged to qualify. For instance, modifications, retrofits or
replacements of existing wastewater pumping systems that achieve a 20 percent increase in energy
efficiency will qualify for the Green Project Reserve. Projects that do not achieve a 20 percent increase in
energy efficiency may also count towards the Green Project Reserve if they have a business case showing
how the project significantly improves energy efficiency. Other non-categorical projects that require
business cases include pipe replacement and existing water meter replacement. Appendix 1 also identifies
the types of projects that are eligible for the Green Project Reserve.
1.3 STUDY QUESTIONS
SAIC included a set of study questions in a proposed scoping document for the Green Project Reserve
study, shown in Table 1. Table 1 contains overarching questions and more detailed questions intended to
help answer the larger questions. The questions relate to primary and secondary environmental benefits
of DWSRF and CWSRF projects, and the factors that influenced environmental outcomes. SAIC's
preliminary review of existing documents revealed that states gathered very little information about
environmental outcomes of GPR projects. SAIC shifted its focus to gathering lessons learned about GPR
project benefits and Green Project Reserve program processes from specific states invited to participate
in focus groups. The methodology for SAIC's approach is described in the next section.
September 2013
-------
TABLE 1. STUDY QUESTIONS FOR THE GREEN PROJECT RESERVE STUDY
OVERARCHING
STUDY QUESTIONS
What were the
environmental
benefits achieved
bytheDWSRF
projects?
DETAILED STUDY QUESTIONS
Did the projects implemented at public water
systems report any health-based violations?
What were the environmental benefits of water
meter replacement projects?
Did the replacement of pumps and motors result
in environmental benefits apart from reduced
power consumption? For example, did the
replacement change the heating/cooling
requirements for the location where the pumps
are installed?
What were the environmental benefits of storage
projects?
Did projects that increased source water capacity
(new wells) result in reduced contaminants in the
water delivered to customers?
Did projects to eliminate leaks in distribution
piping have secondary environmental benefits
beyond water use reduction, such as reduced
energy use for pumping, or reduced chemical use?
Did projects to provide new or additional
treatment only increase system capacity, or did
they reduce the quantity of contaminants in the
water provided to consumers?
Did projects to add/replace/improve Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition capabilities provide
environmental benefits such as energy savings
due to less frequent operator visits to remote
locations; or improved operator control of the
system?
Did any unanticipated benefits result from DWSRF
green projects?
DATA SOURCES
State focus groups; existing literature.
State focus groups; existing literature;
GPR project business cases.
State focus groups; existing literature;
GPR project business cases.
State focus groups; existing literature.
State focus groups; existing literature.
State focus groups; existing literature;
GPR project business cases.
State focus groups; existing literature.
State focus groups; GPR project
business cases.
State focus groups.
What were the
environmental
benefits achieved
bytheCWSRF
projects?
Were the projects implemented at publicly-owned
treatment works in noncompliance with permit
limitations?
State focus groups; Integrated
Compliance Information System-
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System database; GPR
project business cases.
In the case of wastewater collections system
improvements, did the improvements reduce
sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), combined sewer
overflows (CSOs), and basement backups?
State focus groups.
Did the replacement of pumps and motors result
State focus groups; existing literature;
September 2013
-------
OVERARCHING
STUDY QUESTIONS
DETAILED STUDY QUESTIONS
in environmental benefits apart from reduced
power consumption? For example, did the
replacement change the heating/cooling
requirements for the location where the pumps
are installed?
DATA SOURCES
Did landfill projects include energy recovery to
produce renewable power?
Did projects to improve stormwater quality
provide environmental benefits beyond removal
of nutrients and pathogens, such as habitat
restoration or recreational use?
In what ways could the environmentally
innovative projects be applied more widely?
What were the unanticipated benefits
resulting from CWSRF green projects?
GPR project business cases.
Existing literature.
State focus groups; existing literature.
This question was not explored due to
lack of state data.
State focus groups; existing literature;
GPR project business cases.
What are the
lessons learned?
What factors lead to projects that achieved their
projected environmental benefits?
State focus groups.
Is there any difference between categorical and
non-categorical projects in terms of project
outcomes?
State focus groups.
Did any unanticipated benefits result from these
projects?
State focus groups; SAIC analysis.
Were there environmental benefits that were
realized in addition to the primary green benefit
for the various types of projects?
State focus groups; existing literature.
Did the project result in technological advances in
science and health?
Existing literature.
Did green projects result in more benefits than
non-green projects?
This question was not explored due to
lack of state data.
What are some best practices that could be
derived from this analysis?
State focus groups; SAIC analysis.
September 2013
-------
This page intentionally blank.
September 2013
-------
SECTION 2. METHODOLOGY
EPA's OCFO contracted with SAIC to "gather and report on information related to successes, strategies
and lessons learned." However, EPA OCFO subsequently found that other entities in EPA had already
tasked other organizations and contractors with identifying green initiatives' results. When SAIC's study
began, OCFO anticipated that several of these studies could provide relevant background and input for
SAIC's study. Thus EPA directed SAIC to submit a work plan that focused on identifying 'secondary'
benefits and outcomes of green projects. During the course of SAIC's investigations, it was discovered that
limited information on 'secondary' benefits was available. Information and data that would enable a
quantitative analysis of the benefits of green projects was lacking. In addition, SAIC found no
documentation that even listed or compared primary versus secondary benefits of such projects. To
address these challenges, SAIC developed a data collection methodology that consisted of the following
major steps:
Review existing documents and information.
Categorize clean water and drinking water projects.
Conduct state focus group discussions and file reviews.
Document the results of the analyses. Analyze information obtained from all sources, including
existing documents, EPA databases, state focus group discussions and file review results and
document the successes, strategies and lessons learned.
2.1 EXISTING DOCUMENT AND DATABASE REVIEW
SAIC obtained and reviewed existing documents, literature and data related to green project outcomes.
This included EPA databases; published literature, including industry journals such as those published by
the Water Environment Federation; newspaper articles; and other sources to identify information about
specific project outcomes.
2.2 REVIEW AND CATEGORIZATION OF CLEAN WATER AND DRINKING WATER
PROJECTS
SAIC categorized all projects in the databases that support the CWSRF and DWSRF. These databases are
the CBR (clean water) and the PBR (drinking water) systems, respectively. SAIC used the PBR and CBR
database downloads provided by EPA on November 23, 2011, and February 22, 2012, respectively.
SAIC reviewed the fields labeled "Project Description" and "Project Name" in both reporting systems to
understand each project's components and to develop categories to which each project was then
assigned. The categories vary in some respects between the CBR and PBR databases because of the
differences between wastewater and drinking water projects. The project categories are described in
Table 2.
September 2013
-------
TABLE 2. CATEGORIZATION OF PROJECTS IN THE EPA DATABASES
COMMON CATEGORIES
INBOTHCBRANDPBR
DATABASES
Treatment-construction or upgrade of wastewater or drinking water
treatment facilities and/or unit processes.
Pipes - projects involving pipe replacement, rehabilitation or repair of the
wastewater collection system or water transmission lines.
Multiple Categories - projects that included more than one category of work;
for instance, pipe replacement and treatment plant upgrade.
Water Storage - construction of tank or other storage option.
Pumps and Motors - new, replacement or upgrade of pumps and pump
stations.
Meters - installation of new meters or replacement of existing meters.
Expansion - increased collection system capacity or new water transmission
lines to serve new customers.
Administrative - SRF loans to the states. This category is not project oriented
and thus is not included in our analyses.
Other- projects that do not fit into the identified categories. These projects are
not numerous enough to warrant categories of their own. Examples include
construction of a stairway, roof repairs or installation of an injection well.
STORMWATER PROJECTS
ADDITIONAL
CATEGORIES
DRINKING WATER
PROJECTS ADDITIONAL
CATEGORIES
Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) - installation or upgrade of
SCADA systems.
Stormwater - projects that improve stormwater quality.
Land Application/Reclaimed Water- land application of treated wastewater
and/or sludge, or other use of reclaimed water.
Energy Generation - energy recovery from wastewater treatment processes;
solar and wind power generation projects.
CSO - projects that addressed overflows from combined sewers.
Agriculture - projects that involved agricultural lands.
Uncategorized - projects for which sufficient information to determine their
intent was not provided. For instance, some descriptions just say "water system
improvements."
Source Water - projects designed to improve or expand drinking water sources.
Projects in the Uncategorized and Other categories were not further evaluated, due to lack of sufficient
information about the projects. Database entries identified as Administrative are not project oriented and
thus were not further evaluated.
September 2013
-------
2.3
STATE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND FILE REVIEWS
Ultimately, states were selected for focus group discussions based on staff availability to engage in
discussions with SAIC on the topic. Staffs of several states initially considered for inclusion because of the
number and/or type of green projects that were implemented within the state were unavailable to meet
with researchers.
The findings in this study, therefore, are based on responses from focus groups and/or literature, and are
not necessarily representative of the entire population of states receiving ARRA funds for their SRF
programs. Table 3 lists the states that participated in the focus groups and the program affiliation of
participants.
TABLE 3. FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS (FUNDING RECIPIENTS IN PARENTHESES)
AND PROJECTS
_ No. OF No. OF CWSRF GREEN
STATE
PARTICIPANTS PROJECTS
Iowa
Louisiana
Montana
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
8(1)
4
8(2)
14
3(1)
11*(1)
13
7
11
68
15
10
No. OF DWSRF
GREEN PROJECTS
11
7
17
15
31
4
*0ne participant provided feedback over the phone.
Appendix 2 lists the green projects implemented by the focus group states during the ARRA program.
To guide the discussion, SAIC developed a Green Project Reserve Guide for State Focus Groups (Appendix
3) that was used for each of the focus group sessions. This document provided a format and general
discussion topic list that proved valuable in eliciting SRF staff discussions.
2.4 DATA COLLECTION CHALLENGES
Several challenges became evident as SAIC began collection and analysis of data for this study.
ARRA did not mandate that states collect data that would allow for measurement or
documentation of primary or secondary environmental benefits of completed green projects.
As a result, states did not collect such data, except occasional anecdotal reports. In addition,
SAIC found that a significant challenge to the Green Project Reserve study was the lack of an
Information Collection Request (ICR) that would allow for collection of information from more
than nine state SRF offices. To address the ICR issue, SAIC used a focus group process to
engage participants in an open discussion about ARRA implementation of the Green Project
Reserve requirements. The focus groups were designed for the following purposes:
September 2013
-------
o To harvest the knowledge and lessons learned held by the state staff while meeting
ICR data collection requirements.
o To identify whether the information available in state files is sufficient to answer
the study questions.
o To obtain SRF staff general observations and lessons learned.
The downloaded data that SAIC received from the CBR and PBR databases represents a
snapshot of ARRA projects. SAIC was informed that all ARRA projects should be present in the
downloaded data from CBR and PBR, but other information in the databases, such as the
amount ultimately spent on each project and whether the project is complete may have
changed since the time that the downloaded data was provided to SAIC.
The states are largely responsible for uploading data to these databases. Based on SAIC's
assessment and comparison of the data, it appears that some data entry fields may have been
viewed differently by different data entry personnel. For example, some data fields that
contain dollar amounts were used inconsistently and thus the amounts cannot be compared
from project to project. This was noted for both databases.
Another challenge involved finding published data to enable SAIC to identify environmental
outcomes, especially given that even completed projects have only been in operation for a few
years at most. For some types of projects, this may be sufficient time for environmental
outcomes to be realized. For example, projects that reduce drinking water losses (the primary
benefit) may have almost immediate secondary benefits in the form of reduced energy and
chemical usage. On the other hand, wastewater collection projects for CSO elimination will
have primary and secondary benefits that are realized only during extreme precipitation
events. It is unlikely that secondary outcomes from these projects can be documented until
many years after project completion. Thus, data supporting outcomes may be more available
for some project types than for others.
September 2013 10
-------
SECTION 3. FINDINGS
The text discussion presented in this section is organized by research method and includes the following
categories of findings:
Findings from Existing Studies and Information Sources. Section 3.1 includes information from
other EPA funded research and research conducted by other organizations as well as reviews of
specific states' lUPs.
Findings from EPA Database Analysis and Categorization of Clean Water and Drinking Water
Projects. In Section 3.2, SAIC presents the results of analyses of EPA's Clean Water and Drinking
Water databases to identify which projects were green and to categorize each project by type.
Findings from State Focus Groups. Section 3.3 provides an overview of the states' GPR projects
and secondary benefits or outcomes as described by SRF staff, as well as examples of GPR
projects funded by the state.
SAIC observations of green project types across all states. Section 3.4 reviews the benefits of
major types of green projects based on review of documents pertaining to ARRA projects,
literature reviews and SAIC's focus group experiences.
Summaries of benefits/outcomes, Green Project Reserve program successes and lessons learned.
Section 3.5 summarizes benefits found in reports, from focus group participants, literature
reviews and ARRA document reviews, as well as SAIC's experience.
Recommendations. In Section 3.6, SAIC formulated several recommendations based on the
information learned from this study, including the lessons listed above regarding the Green
Project Reserve program for EPA's consideration
Table 4 summarizes the big picture findings of this research for each study question. Upon completion of
all focus group meetings and literature reviews, SAIC compiled and analyzed the information. Table 4
below presents answers to the overarching and detailed questions, to the extent possible. The big picture
findings are generally based on information gathered from existing studies and information sources and
focus groups with representatives from six states. The findings range from specific facts from literature
and existing study information to anecdotal information from observations and expected outcomes from
on-the-ground focus group participants. The table provides the reader with information on where the
findings came from, either literature or focus groups. The sections of the report following the table
include a thorough discussion of the findings. The sources used to arrive at the findings for each question
also are identified in Table 1 in the Introduction section.
September 2013 11
-------
TABLE 4. STUDY QUESTIONS IN THE GREEN PROJECT RESERVE STUDY
AND BIG PICTURE FINDINGS
DETAILED STUDY QUESTION
Overarching Study Question:
What were the environmental benefits achieved by the DWSRF projects?
Did states use drinking water quality
violations as a criterion for funding
upgrades at public water systems?
Some states assessed whether communities were at risk of non-
compliance to determine which projects received ARRA funding.
Not all green drinking water system upgrade projects were funded
to address non-compliance however.
What were the primary and secondary
environmental benefits of water meter
replacement projects?
The key primary benefits included water conservation (i.e., less
water usage). Some key secondary benefits included enabling
home owner to make decisions with accurate, on-time
information, and reduced homeowner disturbance (e.g., trucks
and meter readers) based on discussions with state and funding
recipients.
Did the replacement of pumps and
motors result in environmental benefits
apart from reduced power consumption?
For example, did the replacement change
the heating/cooling requirements for the
location where the pumps are installed?
The primary reason for such projects was energy use reduction. It
is likely that there were additional engineering expectations
regarding secondary benefits related to reduced cooling needs
(due to more efficient pumps and motors), but states did not
report that they documented these environmental benefits.
What were the environmental benefits of
storage projects?
Water storage projects were in a smaller category (about 16
projects out of almost 500 green drinking water projects). Review
of ARRA projects documentation indicates that storage projects
can make use of electricity at non-peak times for pumping. This
reduces cost of pumping but also uses a power plant's output
more effectively. This may in turn reduce the need to build
additional power plants.
Did projects that increased source water
capacity (i.e., new wells) result in reduced
contaminants in the water delivered to
customers?
Source water projects were a smaller category (about 25 out of
almost 500 green drinking water projects). States did not discuss
these during focus groups. It is SAIC's observation that projects to
increase source water capacity, including new wells, were needed
to address potable water quality.
Did projects to eliminate leaks in
distribution piping have secondary
environmental benefits beyond water use
reduction, such as reduced energy use for
pumping, or reduced chemical use?
State recipients identified that the key secondary benefits were
reduced energy, increased fire flows and reduced chemical use.
These secondary benefits were cited as a reason to fund the
projects and energy savings and chemical savings were estimated
prior to project selection. Actual savings were not tracked or
documented however.
September 2013
12
-------
DETAILED STUDY QUESTIONS
Did projects to provide new or additional
treatment only increase system capacity,
or did they reduce the quantity of
contaminants in the water provided to
consumers?
BIG PICTURE FINDINGS
SAIC's review of EPA's Drinking Water database revealed that in
general, such projects were designed to increase capacity as well
as improve the quality of the water provided to consumers.
However, in some cases existing plants were upgraded for capacity
reasons, and not necessarily due to quality issues.
Did projects to add/replace/improve
SCADA capabilities provide
environmental benefits such as energy
savings due to less frequent operator
visits to remote locations; or improved
operator control of the system?
Review of EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water databases
indicates that very few SCADA projects were funded as green
projects. In SAIC's experience, environmental benefits of such
projects include reduced amount of truck travel (e.g., fuel
emissions) and improved operator understanding and control of
the system. SCADA systems can reduce energy use by utilizing
radio communications to reduce unnecessary trips to remote
assets. Some Business Plans identified that with the SCADA
system, the central office can turn water supply wells off and on to
maintain water levels in the tank at a desired range, potentially
reducing energy use for pumping. The SCADA system provides
immediate notification in the event of a catastrophic failure of a
system component, enabling operators to take immediate
corrective action potentially preventing property damage and
reducing threats to public health.
Did any other unanticipated benefits
result from DWSRF green projects?
Unlike most drinking water projects that focused on increasing or
improving water supply, five of the six projects in Puerto Rico
included improvements designed to reduce the pressure of the
drinking water being supplied. This in turn reduced pipe breakage
and resultant water loss.
Overarching Study Question:
What were the environmental benefits achieved by CWSRF projects?
Were the projects implemented at
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs)
that were in noncompliance with permit
limitations?
Review of project descriptions in EPA's Clean Water database
revealed that often the primary reason for funding POTW
improvements was to increase plant capacity. By increasing plant
capacity, backups in the system could be reduced or eliminated,
thus resulting in improved surface water quality. Some, but not all,
POTWs receiving ARRA funds had permit compliance issues.
In the case of wastewater collection
system improvements, did the
improvements reduce SSOs, CSOs and
basement backups?
Yes - capacity improvements helped reduce CSOs, SSOs and
basement backups, based on SAIC's experience.
September 2013
13
-------
DETAILED STUDY QUESTIONS
Did the replacement of pumps and
motors result in environmental benefits
apart from reduced power consumption?
For example, did the replacement change
the heating/cooling requirements for the
location where the pumps are installed?
BIG PICTURE FINDINGS
The primary reason for such projects was energy use reduction. It
is likely that there were additional engineering expectations
regarding secondary benefits related to reduced cooling needs
(due to more efficient pumps and motors), but states did not
report that they documented these environmental benefits.
Did landfill closure projects include
energy recovery to produce renewable
power?
Fairbanks implemented a landfill gas to energy project in Alaska; a
secondary benefit was proving technology could be used in cold
regions with sub-optimal geologic settings.
Did projects to improve stormwater
quality provide environmental benefits
beyond removal of nutrients and
pathogens, such as habitat restoration or
recreational use?
Yes - literature reviews indicated that some stormwater projects
restored natural spaces, which provided for greater public
enjoyment, as well as improved fish and wildlife habitat.
In what ways could the environmentally
innovative projects be applied more
widely?
Information to answer this question was not obtained during the
focus groups.
What were the unanticipated benefits
resulting from CWSRF green projects?
Stormwater projects were particularly likely to produce
unanticipated benefits. Because such projects are very noticeable
to the community and visitors to the community, they serve to
improve the environmental awareness of residents; allow
residents to see the use and benefits from tax dollars; improve
communities through beautifying formerly urbanized landscapes;
increase neighborhood pride; and enhance property values.
Several states noted these types of effects.
Overarching Study Question:
What are the lessons learned?
What factors lead to projects that
achieved their projected environmental
benefits?
Data were insufficient to permit analysis of this question; states
did not document environmental benefits.
Is there any difference between
categorical and non-categorical projects
in terms of project outcomes?
Data were insufficient to permit analysis of this question.
September 2013
14
-------
DETAILED STUDY QUESTIONS
Did any unanticipated benefits result
from these projects?
BIG PICTURE FINDINGS
Yes - one example is the use of waste restaurant grease to create
energy, as identified in a literature review. Besides this primary
benefit, when grease is captured for use, less grease enters
sewers. This results in a decreased incidence of sewer overflows
and blockages, which would otherwise impact water quality.
Human health impacts caused by contact with sewage would also
be reduced.
Were there environmental benefits that
were realized in addition to the primary
green benefit for the various types of
projects?
Yes - focus group participants and literature reviews confirm that
stormwater projects provide visible outcomes - cleaned up
streams with effective erosion control in place and new wetlands
and open spaces that citizens can readily see and appreciate.
Based on SAIC's experience, the primary and secondary benefits of
many drinking water plant, distribution system and wastewater
projects are less visible to the public. Their benefits may be more
quantifiable through engineering calculations for reduced leaking,
etc.
Did the project result in technological
advances in science and health?
Fairbanks landfill gas to energy project is an example of a green
project that proved the viability of technology in a challenging
physical environment.
Did green projects result in more benefits
than non-green projects?
Data were insufficient to permit analysis of this question.
What are some best practices that could
be derived from this analysis?
Potential best practices include modifying project ranking systems
to include green criteria and asking states to quantify primary and
secondary impacts. Quantifying impacts might be achieved by
requiring business cases for all projects.
3.1
FINDINGS FROM EXISTING STUDIES AND INFORMATION SOURCES
Prior to conducting the focus groups with the states, SAIC reviewed a number of existing studies and data
regarding anticipated environmental benefits. (These studies from various sources did not focus solely on
the states selected for the focus groups.) Representative studies are discussed in this section. SAIC found
very few studies that included actual project outcomes. One of the reasons for this is that environmental
outcomes may not be observable until years after project completion. For instance, reduced numbers of
SSOs resulting from upgrades to wastewater treatment plants and collection systems may not be
observable until certain rainfall conditions occur. Planning, funding and accomplishing water quality
studies to demonstrate environmental benefits resulting from upgraded treatment plants may take years.
As was noted earlier, ARRA did not require measurement or documentation of primary or secondary
environmental results. Thus it is not surprising that states did not require project recipients to acquire and
provide this to SRF program staff.
September 2013
15
-------
EPA funded studies of ten CWSRF GPR projects (http://water.epa.gov/grants funding/cwsrf/Green-
Project-Reserve.cfm). The studies described the technologies used for the selected green projects and
their expected outcomes. Data was not collected and/or was not available on the actual environmental
outcomes of the projects. An overall report from the effort focused on the numbers and locations of
projects rather than the environmental benefits of such projects (EPA, 2012). Similar studies of CWSRF
GPR projects were also not designed to identify and quantify actual project benefits.
Aside from the draft partial analysis conducted by lEc and described below, SAIC did not uncover any
quantitative analysis of environmental outcomes of green ARRA projects. Environmental benefits of green
projects are notoriously difficult to quantify, and no other studies were found that attempted such an
analysis for ARRA-funded projects.
3.1.1 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INC. (2011)
lEc analyzed anticipated environmental benefits from ARRA CWSRF and DWSRF GPR projects (Industrial
Economics, Inc., 2011). The possible universe of projects included all those which were partially or wholly
funded by funds designated to be in the Green Project Reserve. Environmental benefits data were
obtained from documentation that funding recipients provided to state environmental protection
agencies in 2009 and early 2010 as part of their SRF assistance applications (specifically, business cases).
lEc was able to find data only for about one-third of GPR projects. The lack of data availability was
attributed to several reasons. First, EPA did not require documentation for projects that were
'categorically' green, which reduced the universe of projects with available data. Moreover, although EPA
guidance required states to maintain documentation of environmental benefits for all projects which
were not 'categorically' green, lEc gleaned from conversations with Regional EPA and state environmental
staff that many staff considered the guidance unclear on what projects did or did not require business
cases (i.e., what projects were 'categorically' green). State staff made their own determination on which
projects would require documentation.
lEc's review of the environmental benefits of ARRA green projects included:
Reduced wastewater volume discharged.
Reduced discharges of nitrogen.
Reduced discharges of phosphorous.
Shoreline restored.
Reduced sediment.
Wetlands created.
Reduced potable water treatment and use, leading to less water treatment chemicals being
used.
Avoided greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy use.
Discussions of the qualitative environmental benefits of green projects are underway by a variety of non-
prof it and other associations. Summaries of several of these efforts are included below.
September 2013 16
-------
3.1.2 THE CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TECHNOLOGY (2010)
A study by The Center for Neighborhood Technology found that the following types of environmental
benefits might be expected from green infrastructure projects, primarily stormwater projects (The Center
for Neighborhood Technology, 2010):
Reduces water treatment needs.
Improves water quality.
Reduces gray infrastructure needs.
Reduces flooding.
Increases available water supply.
Increases groundwater recharge.
Reduces salt use on roads.
Reduces energy use.
Improves air quality.
Reduces atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Reduces urban heat island.
Improves aesthetics.
Increases recreational opportunity.
Reduces noise pollution.
Improves community cohesion.
Encourages urban agriculture.
Improves habitat.
Cultivates public education opportunities.
3.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE CENTER AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY (2010)
Under a cooperative agreement with EPA, the Environmental Finance Center at Syracuse University
produced a study designed to identify positive and negative aspects of the state's Green Innovation Grant
Program (GIGP) application, selection and implementation processes and to assist the state's SRF offices
in improving future rounds of GIGP. (The Environmental Finance Center at Syracuse University, 2010)
The Syracuse report found that 40 percent of green projects funded by New York were energy efficiency
projects. As an example of expected outcomes, the study cites The Town of Richland in Oswego County.
The town invested in wind energy infrastructure by constructing two, 50 kilowatt hour (kWh) wind
turbines at the local Schoeller Well Site. The renewable energy produced was expected to offset energy
consumed in pumping and treating water. The estimated total project cost was $976,400, of which ARRA
funded about half. The Syracuse report does not provide data indicating whether the expected
efficiencies were achieved.
September 2013 17
-------
The Syracuse report cites an example green infrastructure project. The Tioga County Soil and Water
Conservation District project was expected to restore 227 acres of wetlands in the Susquehanna River, at
a projected cost of $857,108.
In another example, the Troy Department of Public Utilities in Rensselaer County received $450,000 to
install vibration leak detection equipment along 155 miles of distribution mains. This will enable the City
to identify and reduce water lost through leaks and is expected to result in savings of approximately 350
million gallons per year. Again, no follow up data was provided to show actual project outcomes.
3.1.4 ASERTTI
The Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI) is a 501(c)(3)
organization whose membership includes state and federal agencies, universities and private
corporations. ASERTTI's mission is "to increase the effectiveness of energy research efforts in contributing
to economic growth, environmental quality, and energy security." ASERTTI has collected data for a
number of energy related projects, including several that were funded under the ARRA Green Project
Reserve. These include:
Gloversville-Johnstown Joint Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Johnstown, NY) Anaerobic
Digester (AD) and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) System Upgrades. This ARRA-funded project
increased the efficiency of the aeration system and the anaerobic digester, enabling the facility
to move closer to energy independence.
City of Glens Falls Sludge Disposal Auxiliary Fuel System. This innovative project provided an
alternative approach to managing yellow waste grease at the Glens Falls Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facility. The plant has the capacity to treat 9.8 million gallons of water per day (MGD)
and usually treats 5 MGD. Sludge, or suspended solids, is a byproduct of the wastewater
treatment process. To dispose of sludge, the plant uses a fluid bed incinerator which burns the
biosolids and collects the ash. The ash can then be used and distributed as intermediate grading
material for landfills or as filler for cement. Traditionally, the incinerator was powered using fossil
fuels like oil and natural gas. After upgrades in 2009, the plant at Glens Falls now powers its
incinerator with yellow waste grease from local restaurants, food processing plants and bakeries.
As a popular tourist area in the foothills of the Adirondacks, there is an ample supply of
commercial grease from local eateries. The upgrades effectively protect the wastewater system,
save money and protect the environment.
Village of Saranac Lake System-Wide Water Meter Project. The Village of Saranac Lake is located
in the Adirondack Mountains of upstate New York and has a population of over 5,000 people.
The Saranac Lake Department of Public Works (DPW) began studying village water consumption
in 2007. There are 1,900 water meter service connections in the village, but only about half had
actual water meters, which were not owned by Saranac Lake. This situation made for a very
inefficient, two-pronged billing structure for both metered use and flat rates. After first fixing
leaks identified in a leak survey, DPW determined that an overabundance of water was being
consumed by residents, businesses, and municipal buildings. The Saranac Lake System-Wide
Water Meter Project was conceived as a solution to conserve water and streamline billing
operations. Through a combination of grant and local funding, 1,900 new, village-owned water
meters were purchased to replace old meters and to meter the rest of the connections.
September 2013 18
-------
3.1.5 STATE INTENDED USE PLANS
SAIC reviewed the 2009/2010 ILJPs for each of the six states in which focus groups were conducted. lUPs
serve as part of the application that states must make annually for federal funding under both DWSRF and
CWSRF. Each year, the states evaluate their water quality needs and develop priorities for the SRFs. States
may develop their own prioritization systems. Prioritizing conventions include, for example, identifying
priority waters according to the needs within these waters; identifying priority problems or needs at the
state level; and generating priorities based on a state's watershed management program. After the
prioritization step, each state solicits projects from wastewater and drinking water agencies within the
state, and chooses the projects that it proposes to fund to include in the draft IUP. After public review,
the IUP is finalized.
It is important to note that existing project priority scoring mechanisms in lUPs were not designed to
capture green project benefits that would address specific green priorities. The abbreviated ARRA
timeline allowed state SRF managers little time for specific marketing or outreach efforts to promote
green projects. However, despite these problems, SAIC notes that state SRF staff were able to identify
projects that met ARRA goals for green funding.
SAIC found during the focus groups that many state SRF programs responded to the ARRA Green Project
Reserve requirement by modifying their priority ranking systems to incorporate Green Project Reserve
elements in their scoring process. This adjustment will allow those states to identify and focus on the
'best' green projects (i.e., those expected to produce the greatest benefits) in future SRF funding cycles.
3.2 FINDINGS FROM EPA DATABASE ANALYSIS AND CATEGORIZATION OF CLEAN
WATER AND DRINKING WATER PROJECTS
There are differences in data fields between the CBR database and the PBR database. This adds to the
complexity of efforts to evaluate and analyze information in the two databases. For instance, clean water
projects that were determined by the states to meet the definitions of Green Project Reserve were
identified in the CBR database in a data field entitled "Green". Drinking water projects deemed by the
states to meet the Green Project Reserve definition were identified in a PBR data field entitled "Green
Infrastructure." For the purposes of this report, SAIC assumes that all projects so identified are green
projects or contain elements that are green.
Database entries indicate that many projects contained both green and non-green elements; the amounts
for non-green and green expenditures are listed separately. Each database contains data fields for
amounts of spending to be entered for Green Infrastructure, Green Water, Green Energy, Green
Innovative, and Green Amount. Unfortunately, the data were not consistently entered. For example, a
state may have entered duplicate $500,000 entries under Green Infrastructure and under Green
Innovative, when the total project value was only $500,000. This may have been an effort to note that the
green project was innovative as well as constituting green infrastructure. Thus the various amounts
entered in these data fields cannot be used to compare spending on green energy versus green water.
The databases do however allow for evaluating the total ARRA funding spent on each of the categories of
projects, as explained further below.
September 2013 19
-------
3.2.1 RESULTS OF DWSRF PROJECT ANALYSIS
The majority of ARRA spending on DWSRF GPR projects supported four project types, as shown in Table 5:
pipes; meters; multiple categories, which include more than one category of work; and treatment. The
PBR data indicate that average ARRA spending per project category (e.g., pipe, meters, treatment, etc.)
was fairly consistent among categories. Pipe projects, meter projects, source water projects and water
storage projects all averaged around $1.3 to $1.4 million each. The fact that some states, for instance,
Montana, set a maximum amount that would be provided to each project may contribute in some part to
the similar average ARRA amount for these projects. Pump and motor projects averaged less at $971,274
per project, probably because this type of project tended to deal with only one or a few pumping
locations as opposed to the more system-wide type projects. The one system expansion project, for
instance, received the largest amount of any of the categories. Energy generation projects, in contrast,
averaged at a lower cost than any other type of project.
Note: Definitions of the CBR and PBR data fields used in the tables below are provided in Appendix E.
These were partially based on a literature source (James A. Hanlon, 2009).
TABLE 5. ARRA SPENDING ON DRINKING WATER GREEN PROJECTS
BY PROJECT CATEGORY (ENTIRE U.S.)
CATEGOR,
Pipe
Meters
Multiple Categories*
Treatment
Energy Generation
Source Water
Pump and Motor
Water Storage
System Expansion
111
109
101
69
29
25
22
16
$144,658,074
$141,098,380
$274,091,346
$137,481,296
$26,525,861
$35,557,162
$21,368,030
$20,892,490
$3,120,000
$1,303,225
$1,294,480
$2,713,775
$1,992,482
$914,684
$1,422,286
$971,274
$1,305,780
$3,120,000
*Multiple categories include projects that can
for instance, pipe replacement and treatment
these were however.
be classified into more than one category of work;
plant upgrade. Data did not identify which categories
3.2.2 RESULTS OF CWSRF PROJECT ANALYSIS
The majority of ARRA spending on CWSRF GPR projects supported four project types, as shown in Table 6:
stormwater; treatment; multiple categories, which include projects that can be classified into more than
one category of work; and pipes. The CBR data indicates that in general wastewater projects funded by
ARRA cost considerably more per project than the drinking water projects. Expansion projects had the
highest cost per project, perhaps due to the large amount of gray infrastructure (traditional pipes,
September 2013
20
-------
buildings, etc.) involved. The same is true for CSO projects and treatment projects. Stormwater projects,
in contrast, were considerably less costly at $961,126 per project.
Note that EPA specifically allowed drinking water utilities to apply to the CWSRF (Suzanne Schwartz,
2009), resulting in the meter projects funded by the CWSRF.
TABLE 6. SPENDING ON CLEAN WATER GREEN PROJECTS
BY PROJECT CATEGORY (ENTIRE U.S.)
Stormwater
Treatment
Multiple Categories*
Pipes
Energy Generation
Pump and Motor
Land Application/
Reclaimed Water
Agriculture
Expansion
CSO
Meters
SCADA
No. OF
EEN PROJECTS
194
183
84
41
37
19
18
6
6
6
4
2
RAP, A AVERAGE ARRA
ARRA AMOUNT
AMOUNT PER PROJECT
$186,458,481
$594,454,031
$278,199,649
$156,961,306
$97,353,610
$27,244,623
$61,411,289
$13,417,000
$68,560,830
$26,647,901
$2,560,777
$3,659,700
$961,126
$3,248,383
$3,311,901
$3,828,325
$2,631,179
$1,433,928
$3,411,738
$2,236,167
$11,426,805
$4,441,317
$640,194
$1,829,850
*Multiple categories include projects that can be classified into more than one category of work; for
instance, pipe replacement and treatment plant upgrade. Data did not identify which categories these
were however.
An interesting question that could not be answered through analysis of the CBRand PBR databases is
whether certain categories of projects might produce more green benefits than other categories. For
instance, does a Stormwater project produce more or fewer green benefits than a wastewater treatment
plant upgrade? Is the level of green benefits realized related to project cost? In order to answer such
questions it would be necessary to more carefully record the spending on the green portions of projects,
and to evaluate and document specific green outcomes of projects.
3.3
FINDINGS FROM FOCUS GROUP STATES
The following section provides a discussion of the findings from the state focus groups, supplemented
with additional research into those states' specific ARRA green projects.
September 2013
21
-------
The text discussion is organized by state:
Iowa.
Louisiana.
Montana.
New York.
North Carolina.
Oklahoma.
For each state, the discussion includes:
Overview/Introduction to State Green Project Reserve Program.
GPR Projects by Category - from CBR and PBR.
Secondary Benefits or Outcomes Identified During the Focus Group.
Table of Example ARRA GPR Projects - provided by SRF staff or identified through literature
review.
Appendix 2 provides a table with all the focus group state's CWSRF GPR projects and a table with all of the
DWSRF GPR projects. These tables are taken from the CBR and PBR databases. The CBR database contains
some information that is lacking in the PBR database. The CWSRF table shows the name of the borrower
(Borrower), the category of the project (Category), the amount of each project that was funded by ARRA
(ARRA Amount), the total amount funded by the SRF (Total SRF Amount), the total cost of the project
(Total Project Cost), and the amounts that were entered for each project under the headings Green
Amount, Green Infrastructure Funded, Green Energy, Green Water, and Green Innovative. The DWSRF
table lacks the Total SRF Amount and the Total Project Cost. It also does not include a borrower name, so
the name of the city or town is used in the table instead (Project City).
With regard to secondary environmental benefits, state focus group participants noted that they did not
have documentation of secondary benefits nor was it requested or required by EPA, but all of the state
participants were able to anecdotally identify some secondary outcomes as the green projects were
discussed. These benefits are not quantifiable. All of the state focus group write-ups below describe
primary environmental benefits (e.g., improved wastewater treatment capacity and/or quality) and
secondary benefits (e.g., town pride in improved infrastructure leading to additional business
investments.)
3.3.1 IOWA
The state of Iowa funded 13 green projects with $11.2 million in ARRA CWSRF funds, and 11 green
projects with $5.8 million in ARRA DWSRF funds (amounts were funds spent on green projects only). Like
many other states, prior to ARRA Iowa had not focused on green projects. The SRF programs had to
incorporate the new green requirements and solicit for projects that would meet these goals. The staff
also worked with their clients to identify the green components of traditional infrastructure projects.
Water meter projects were popular as this type of project could be implemented much more quickly than
large infrastructure projects. A summary of the categories and numbers of GPR projects funded by Iowa is
provided in Table 7.
September 2013 22
-------
TABLE 7. IOWA GPR PROJECTS
CWSRF CATEGORY
Energy Generation
Pump and Motor
Stormwater
Treatment
Total
No. OF ,...-,. No. OF
DWSRF CATEGORY
PROJECTS PROJECTS
1
3
4
5
13
Meters
Pump and Motor
Total
8
3
11
SECONDARY BENEFITS/OUTCOMES IDENTIFIED DURING THE FOCUS GROUP
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) did not track secondary outcomes, other than
anecdotally. Some cities did track secondary outcomes, but the SRF program did not. CWSRF staff
observed that in general cleaner water and lower utility rates resulted from their projects. DWSRF staff
found that improved drinking water quality was obtained at a lower cost. Anecdotes cited included:
Stormwater management. Charles City completed a permeable pavement green project. It
helped reduce flooding in older parts of the community. As a result, home values went up. The
project led to an attitude shift in the town: Before the project, citizens were skeptical about
permeable pavement; now, many neighborhoods want permeable pavement and are asking
when they can get it.
Green infrastructure partnership. The City of Dubuque is partnered with IBM to accomplish a
sustainable community project involving green infrastructure. This partnership provides an
example to other cities as to how green objectives can be accomplished by involving private
groups.
EXAMPLES OF GPR PROJECTS AND OUTCOMES IN IOWA
Iowa funded a mix of different types of projects through its CWSRF and DWSRF programs. CWSRF
infrastructure projects included construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, upgrade of sewer
systems, correction of CSOs and Stormwater management. DWSRF projects included variable frequency
drives (VFD) and meter projects. SAIC was able to find information about several such projects and some
of their environmental benefits during the document review (Table 8). Figure 1 illustrates one of Iowa's
GPR projects, a permeable pavement project in an historic district.
September 2013
23
-------
FIGURE 1. CHARLES CITY GREEN PERMEABLE PAVING PROJECT
TABLE 8. SELECTED GPR PROJECTS FOR IOWA
Charles City Green Infrastructure Project
Source:
http://www.cdfinc.com/Proiect7proiect id=8
3
BENEFITS
Created 16 blocks of permeable paving in an historic residential district.
Deemed to be so successful in the management of water quantity and
quality that the City decided to add six more blocks.
Reduced load on overburdened storm sewers.
Council Bluffs Energy Efficiency Project
Source:
http://www.foxeng.com/news/saving-energy-
council-bluffs-trickling-filter-recirculation-
pump-station-mcc-replacement
Variable frequency drives (VFDs) installed for five large trickling filter
recirculation pumps and two sludge return pumps enabled the pumps to
automatically pace flow conditions, thereby reducing energy consumption.
More efficient drives and controls provide automatic operation at reduced
costs.
Replacing plant effluent water pumps replaced, allowed an increase in
capacity of the wastewater treatment plant without requiring new
construction and plant expansion. Adjustable frequency drives installed on
these pumps provide better operation and reduce energy consumption.
Dubuque Water Meter Replacement
City found that almost seven percent of water use was not recorded by
large meters. Replacing the meters:
September 2013
24
-------
ARRAGPR PROJECTS
I Sources:
http://www.cityofdubuque.org/index.aspx7NI
D=1304
And
http://www.cityofdubuque.org/DocumentCen
ter/Home/View/1965
BENEFITS
Captures $676,000 per year in water/sewer revenues.
Saves $142,000 per year in meter reading costs.
Total savings of $1.4 to 2.2 million per year.
Reduction in water loss also reduces energy and chemical use. Each one
million gallons costs $154 in electricity and $191 in chemicals and sludge
removal.
3.3.2 LOUISIANA
The state of Louisiana funded seven green projects with $8.7 million in ARRA CWSRF funds, and seven
green projects with $9.5 million in ARRA DWSRF funds (amounts were funds spent on green projects
only). Prior to ARRA the state's SRF had focused on funding traditional type treatment projects, so the
state had little experience with identifying appropriate green projects. About half of the CWSRF GPR
requirement was met by the West Monroe wastewater recycling project. Meters were a success story for
both SRFs, as they greatly reduced water loss.
EPA stated that drinking water utilities may apply to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Hanlon,
2009). Louisiana is one state that implemented this, funding five metering projects under the CWSRF
(Appendix 2). In addition, two meter projects were funded by DWSRF. A summary of the categories and
numbers of GPR projects funded by Louisiana is provided in Table 9.
TABLE 9. LOUISIANA GPR PROJECTS
CWSRF CATEGORY No. OF PROJECTS DWSRF CATEGORY No. OF PROJECTS
Meters
Other
Stormwater
Treatment
Total
4
1
1
1
7
Meters
Multiple Categories
Pipe
Treatment
Total
2
2
1
2
7
SECONDARY BENEFITS/OUTCOMES IDENTIFIED DURING THE FOCUS GROUP
SRF staff confirmed that they do not track environmental benefits from the projects and do not follow up
with communities receiving the projects. However, the staff were able to point to the following benefits
as examples of the program's achievements:
Water conservation and reduced costs. The need for meters was extreme in communities
selected for new meter projects. Much of the produced water was being used by unmetered
customers. The new meters greatly reduced this, and enabled the utility to correctly apportion
September 2013
25
-------
costs to water users. This helped to lower water costs for all customers, while at the same time
providing sufficient funding for operation and maintenance activities.
Aquifer conservation for potable water use. SRF staff discussed the West Monroe wastewater
recycling project. The City of West Monroe had an existing 7.5-MGD wastewater treatment plant
that was over 25 years old and in need of replacement. The city proposed to construct a new
treatment plant on the same site to treat wastewater to drinking water standards. Treated
effluent can be used by a local industry, Graphic Packaging International, Inc. (GPI), as process
water for paper manufacturing. GPI currently draws approximately 10 MGD from the Sparta
aquifer for process water. This project was designed to eliminate that demand on the aquifer,
and provide some relief from the declining water levels in the aquifer. All 14 parishes that rely on
the Sparta aquifer can benefit from this project because GPI's 10 MGD demand for potable water
from the aquifer was eliminated.
EXAMPLES OF GPR PROJECTS AND OUTCOMES IN LOUISIANA
The only documentation available for ARRA projects in Louisiana comes from the business cases required
for several of the meter installation projects. The cities already had water meters for most customers, but
the meters were old and inefficient. As water meters age, they record less of the water use. By replacing
aged meters, the cities were able to achieve several benefits. Table 10 provides examples of meter
replacement projects and their benefits.
TABLE 10. SELECTED GPR PROJECTS FOR LOUISIANA
ARRA GPR PROJECTS
City of Youngsville replacement
of inefficient water meters and
installation of an automatic water
reading system
Source: (City of Youngsville,
Louisiana, 2009)
BENEFITS
Near real-time tracking of water loss events as each water meter is read four
times daily.
Water main break triggers alarm, notifying the city immediately so that it can be
repaired. Water loss and threats to public health are minimized.
Water taken illegally from a fire hydrant triggers an alarm, minimizing water
loss.
Overall reduction in water loss by 80% expected from these improvements.
City of Carencro replacement of
inefficient water meters and
installation of an automatic water
reading system
Source: (City of Carencro,
Louisiana, 2009)
Expected 20% increase in water that is metered, thus apportioning water use
more fairly to customers.
Water loss expected to decrease from 65 million gallons per year (MGY) to 13
MGY.
Lower water production rate reduces chemical and energy use.
Automated water reading system reduces need for meter readers to leave their
vehicles and, therefore, reduces vehicle idling, saves fuel and reduces
greenhouse gas emissions.
September 2013
26
-------
3.3.3 MONTANA
The state of Montana funded 11 green projects with $6.8 million in ARRA CWSRF funds, and 17 green
projects with $9.6 million in ARRA DWSRF funds (amounts were funds spent on green projects only). State
SRF staff made the decision to spread out the funds around the state as much as possible, so a cap was
set of about $750,000 per project. This was considered enough to accomplish the project, but also would
allow for funding as many projects as possible around the state. The state also sought a good distribution
among different types of projects. Table 11 provides a summary of the categories and numbers of GPR
projects for Montana.
TABLE 11. MONTANA GPR PROJECTS BY CATEGORY
CWSRF CATEGORY No. OF PROJECTS DWSRF CATEGORY No. OF PROJECTS
Land Application/ Reclaimed
Water
Multiple Categories
Other
Pipes
Stormwater
Treatment
Total
1
2
1
1
1
5
11
Meters
Pipe
Total
4
13
17
SECONDARY BENEFITS/OUTCOMES IDENTIFIED DURING THE FOCUS GROUP
Montana staff reviewed their list of all SRF GPR projects during the focus group. Montana did not
specifically document secondary benefits or outcomes, but staff were able to recall observed benefits for
many of the DWSRF and CWSRF projects. The benefits are listed in no particular order and some could
have been benefits for several categories of projects.
Overall improved civic pride. Implementing ARRA-funded projects had a positive effect on
towns' civic pride. Homeowners maintained their properties better, and community pride
increased. Roads were often resurfaced as a result of water distribution main projects, and this
contributed to community pride.
Fire protection. Fire protection was enhanced by new larger distribution mains. Many of the
rural systems had not been upgraded in 100 years.
Open space. Some of the funds were used to aid in transitioningfrom individual septic tanks to
central treatment. Usable space and open space increased when septic tanks were removed.
Cost savings. Cost savings resulted from using less chemicals and energy.
Habitat. Enhanced wetlands provide habitat for wildlife.
Cleaner groundwater. Staff also noted that spray irrigation of wastewater on fields increased
stream flows, as less water was withdrawn from streams in order to irrigate crops. Increased
September 2013
27
-------
stream flow could benefit certain aquatic organisms at times of low stream flow (such as during a
drought).
Compliance. ARRA funding helped many municipalities come into compliance. Even though the
SRF program has been around for decades, it still requires municipalities to apply for loans and
obtain approvals from local councils for rate increases. ARRA grants allowed very rural
communities to upgrade and improve systems without high loans.
Growth in towns. New sewer systems led to growth in rural towns, new open spaces and more
efficient land use.
EXAMPLES OF GPR PROJECTS AND OUTCOMES IN MONTANA
Table 12 below provides a selection of GPR projects and some of their expected environmental outcomes,
provided by state SRF staff. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate two GPR Montana projects under construction.
TABLE 12. SELECTED GPR PROJECTS COMPLETED BY MONTANA
ARRA GPR PROJECTS/LOCATION
BENEFITS
-\
Missoula County-Lewis and Clark
Subdivision Water Meter
Installation and Main Replacement
Source: Focus Group and follow-up
request
Annual water savings are anticipated to exceed 12 million gallons.
Energy cost savings estimated at approximately $2,500 annually.
Other O&M savings are estimated at $9,700 annually.
Red Lodge Waste Water Treatment
Plant Solar Panel Array and VFDs
Source: Focus Group and follow-up
request
Solar panel array will produce 6,500 kWh/month of electricity, more than 40% of
the plant's total electrical use.
Excess energy created at times when the blowers are not operating will be sold.
VFDs will allow the motors to be run at less than full operating horsepower when
the full power is not necessary, saving energy.
New dissolved oxygen probe will allow the motors to be run only when the
oxygen levels are low.
Overall, project is estimated to reduce the City's emissions by 61 metric tons of
carbon dioxide per year.
September 2013
28
-------
FIGURE 2. LEWIS AND CLARK SUBDIVISION MAIN REPLACEMENT
FIGURE 3. RED LODGE SOLAR ARRAY UNDER CONSTRUCTION
3.3.4 NEW YORK
The state of New York funded more green projects than any other state except Ohio. Congress granted
$432 million in CWSRF funds to New York through ARRA. Of this, 20 percent, or $86 million, was
designated as Green Project Reserve funds. The funds were managed by the New York State
Environmental Facilities Corporation (NYSEFC) because it also oversees the state CWSRF and DWSRF. To
facilitate distribution and to satisfy the requirements of these funds, NYSEFC designed the new Green
September 2013
29
-------
Innovative Grant Program (GIGP). NYSEFC received 294 project applications amounting to $468 million in
requested grant money and $682 million in project value. Given the contracted time frame in which
NYSEFC had to design the program and solicit proposals, NYSEFC expected to receive relatively few
proposals. Thus the high response and the total amount requested for green projects was seen by the
agency as a success (The Environmental Finance Center at Syracuse University, 2010). A summary of the
categories and numbers of GPR projects funded by New York is provided in Table 13 below.
TABLE 13. NEW YORK GPR PROJECTS
CWSRF CATEGORY No. OF PROJECTS DWSRF CATEGORY No. OF PROJECTS
Energy Generation
Multiple Categories
Other
Pipes
Pump and Motor
Stormwater
Treatment
Total
12
15
21
68
Energy Generation
Meters
Multiple Categories
Other
Treatment
Total
15
SECONDARY BENEFITS/OUTCOMES IDENTIFIED DURING THE FOCUS GROUP
Documentation of project environmental outcomes in New York exceeds that of the other states in the
SAIC study. This is at least partly due to the partnership with Syracuse University to help fund and operate
the Green Project Exchange (GPE) at the Environmental Finance Center at Syracuse. The GPE includes a
website that showcases projects from communities across New York State. It is a user-driven database to
which posts are contributed by project leaders interested in sharing success stories, best practices and
tested solutions (http://www.greenprojectexchange.org/). The website contains information regarding
the outcomes of several of the ARRA GPR projects that were implemented within New York State.
Examples of projects and outcomes are shown in Table 12 below.
Asa result of the wealth of written documentation of project benefits, the focus group discussions did not
cover this topic in any detail. SRF staff noted that Rome and other cities experienced revitalization after
their streets were rebuilt for water infrastructure projects. The staff heard things like "Hey, my street
looks better, I should open a business here."
September 2013
30
-------
EXAMPLES OF GPR PROJECTS AND OUTCOMES IN NEW YORK
Table 14 below provides a selection of GPR projects and some of their expected environmental outcomes
as listed on the Green Project Exchange website.
TABLE 14. SELECTED GPR PROJECTS FOR NEW YORK
City of Glens Falls Sludge Disposal
Auxiliary Fuel System
Anticipated 99% decrease in the amount of fossil fuel needed to power
the incinerator.
Reduced preventive maintenance costs.
Diversion of an estimated 455,308 gallons of waste grease from the
wastewater system every year, protecting the system and preventing
improper disposal of the grease.
Village of Saranac Lake System
Wide Water Meter Project
Expected 20% reduction in water use (70 MG/year).
Comparable reduction in energy and chemicals used for treatment.
Savings in time, man-hours and energy as a result of new drive-by meter
reading system.
Gloversville-Johnstown Joint
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Anaerobic Digester (AD) and
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
System Upgrades
New dissolved air flotation tanks enable fats and oils to be removed from
wastewater more efficiently, reducing loading to other parts of the
treatment process and energy use.
Fats and oils are fed into the anaerobic digester, which maximizes energy
production (biogas) in this unit.
Capture and use of biogas from the anaerobic digester on average meets
or exceeds the energy needs of the entire facility, leading to greatly
reduced dependence on fossil fuel.
Lindenhurst Memorial Library
Sustainable Parking Lot
Removes silt and pollutants from stormwater runoff.
Provides an aesthetic alternative to conventional drains.
Alleviates stress on sewage conveyance and treatment systems.
Reduces the urban heat island effect due to use of high albedo pavers.
Source: Green Products Exchange http://www.greenprojectexchange.org/gpe/
3.3.5 NORTH CAROLINA
The state of North Carolina funded 11 green projects with $14.2 million in ARRA CWSRF funds, and 31
green projects with $13.1 million in ARRA DWSRF funds (amounts were funds spent on green projects
only). North Carolina was fairly new to funding green projects; prior to ARRA, SRF funds were typically
used for treatment or pipe projects. The Green Project Reserve requirements of ARRA greatly encouraged
SRF funding of green projects.
A summary of the categories and numbers of GPR projects funded by North Carolina is provided in Table
15.
September 2013
31
-------
TABLE 15. NORTH CAROLINA GPR PROJECTS
CWSRF CATEGORY
Land Application/Reclaimed
Water
Other
Stormwater
Total
No. OF PROJECTS DWSRF CATEGORY No. OF PROJECTS
1
1
13
15
Energy Generation
Meters
Pipe
Pump and Motor
Source Water
Treatment
Total
11
12
2
2
1
3
31
SECONDARY BENEFITS/OUTCOMES IDENTIFIED DURING THE FOCUS GROUP
North Carolina reviewed their list of all SRF GPR projects during the focus group. The participants had not
documented any secondary benefits or outcomes but were able to identify benefits for many of the DW
and CW projects. The benefits are listed in no particular order and some could have been benefits for
several categories of projects.
Stream restoration. With ARRA funding and pressure to find green projects, the Department of
Natural Resources funded stream restoration projects and other stormwater projects for the first
time.
Recovered costs. The state cited automated meters as very successful. Twelve of North
Carolina's GPR projects replaced decades-old meters with new automated reading technology.
The new meters are much more accurate, allowing for better recovery of costs. As meters age,
they read lower and lower, and at very low flows they may not read at all if the impeller sticks. So
new meter installation results in more accurate cost allocation. More of the produced water is
actually paid for by customers, so customers know the real cost of water and are thus
encouraged to use less. The recovered costs are channeled back into operation and maintenance
activities which help to ensure compliance with drinking water regulations.
Reduced disinfection byproducts. Solar powered mixers installed on water treatment units that
previously were unmixed were successful in some, but not all, cases in lowering disinfection
byproducts.
Water conservation and improved quality. Replacement of failing water mains helped to reduce
water loss. These projects also were expected to positively impact drinking water quality.
September 2013
32
-------
EXAMPLES OF GPR PROJECTS AND OUTCOMES IN NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina completed a number of stormwater projects under ARRA. Results of several such projects
are summarized in Table 16. Project information is from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg stormwater website
(see Table 16 below). Stormwater projects were more likely to be completed in a short time frame and
provide more immediately observable results than most other types of projects. Figures 4 and 5 show
before and after pictures of a stream restoration project.
TABLE 16. SELECTED GPR PROJECTS FOR NORTH CAROLINA
ARRA GPR Project/Location
BENEFITS
Benefits
Torrence Creek Main Stem & Torrence Creek Tributary #2
Stream Restoration and Water Quality Enhancement/
Mecklenburg County
Source:
http://charmeck.org/stormwater/proiects/pages/mcdowellcre
ek-torrencecreekstreamrestoration.aspx
Restored 7,700 linear feet of the main stem of Torrence
Creek and 9,000 linear feet of Torrence Creek Tributary
#2.
Repaired bank erosion.
Improved aquatic habitat.
Created 'pocket' wetlands in the floodplain.
Muddy Creek Storm Drainage Improvement Project/ City of
Charlotte
Source:
http://charmeck.org/stormwater/proiects/pages/muddycreek.
Restored 7,373 linear feet of stream and 6.1 acres of
wetland along Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch.
Created, enhanced and protected forested riparian
areas.
Created a new 27.9 acre riparian wildlife habitat
conservation area.
Improved habitats for aquatic life and wildlife.
Wilora Lake Rehabilitation/City of Charlotte
Source:
http://charmeck.org/stormwater/Proiects/Pages/WiloraLakeRe
habilitation.aspx
Decreased maintenance by building two forebays to
remove sediment from the water flowing into a pond.
Constructed a littoral shelf to provide wildlife habitat,
improve water quality and provide safety benefits.
September 2013
33
-------
FIGURES 4 AND 5. BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS OF TORRENCE CREEK
(fro mwww.charmeck.org/stormwater/proiects/pages/mcdowellcreektorrencecreekstreamrestoration.aspx)
3.3.6 OKLAHOMA
The state of Oklahoma funded 10 green projects with $12 million in ARRA CWSRF funds, and 4 green
projects with $7.7 million in ARRA DWSRF funds (amounts were funds spent on green projects only).
Oklahoma SRF programs had mainly funded traditional treatment type projects prior to ARRA. The state
was able to meet the short timeline for ARRA projects by partnering with other public agencies and third
parties to accomplish some green projects, such as stream bank restoration. Oklahoma SRF staff found
that the ability of 'smart meter' projects to provide real-time water use data was a huge improvement
over existing systems. A summary of the categories and numbers of GPR projects funded by Oklahoma is
provided in Table 17.
TABLE 17. OKLAHOMA GPR PROJECTS
, OF PROJECTS
Stormwater
Treatment
Total
10
Meters
Multiple Categories
Total
SECONDARY BENEFITS/OUTCOMES IDENTIFIED DURING THE FOCUS GROUP
Although SRF staff did not specifically track secondary benefits/outcomes, they offered several examples
of observed benefits/outcomes during the focus group.
Improved customer service. SRF staff stated that installation of automatic meter readers (AMRs)
resulted in improved customer servicecity staff could spend their time fixing leaks instead of
reading meters. In small towns, meter readers usually have other tasks too; installation of AMRs
freed them up for these other tasks. As a result, no city staff were laid off.
September 2013
34
-------
Creative 'green' project additions. Some of the grant recipients' engineers began to think about
what changes could be made in project design and equipment specifications to make a project
more 'green.' For example, they thought about widening the scope of projects to include
installing in solar panels.
Energy conservation. The state provided an example business case that was submitted for the
City of Duncan's wastewater treatment plant. The project was to replace the existing aerator
blowers with new high efficiency motors that include VFDs. The City estimated that the new
motors would reduce the annual energy consumption of the aerators by almost 44 percent. Since
this exceeds the Green Project Reserve requirement that such projects achieve a 20 percent net
energy reduction, the project was eligible for Green Project Reserve funding. However, no follow
up data were collected that would confirm the expected energy savings.
EXAMPLES OF GPR PROJECTS AND OUTCOMES IN OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma documented the results of several GPR projects. Stormwater projects were more likely to be
completed in a short time frame and provide more immediately observable results than most other types
of projects. Two examples for which results were documented on the State's website are listed below in
Table 18. Figures 6 and 7 show before and after photos of a streambank stabilization project in Oklahoma.
TABLE 18. SELECTED GPR PROJECTS FOR OKLAHOMA
Illinois River Streambank Stabilization
Source:
http://www.ok.gov/conservation/News/lllinois River
Tour September 12, 2012.html
Repaired erosion damage to streambanks at 11 sites in the
Illinois River watershed.
Planted native grasses, wildflowers and trees to improve the
stability of the bank and the riparian areas and to help limit
pollutant loading in the streams.
Improved both aquatic and terrestrial habitats and reduced the
amount of sediment going into the.
Owasso Public Works Authority Regional Stormwater
Detention Basin
Source: (City of Owasso, Oklahoma, Undated)
Planted trees to provide shade, which lowered water
temperature and improved aquatic habitat.
Vegetated areas to provide filtration for sediment, nutrients and
other pollutants.
Provided improved habitat for upland species.
September 2013
35
-------
FIGURES 6 AND 7. BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS OF REPAIRED SITE ON ILLINOIS RIVER
(from http://www.ok.gov/conservation/News/lllinois River Tour September 12, 2012.html)
3.4 SAIC OBSERVATIONS OF GREEN PROJECT TYPES (CATEGORY) ACROSS ALL
STATES
The following comments and observations of green project benefits are based on the SAIC Team's review
of documents pertaining to ARRA projects, literature reviews and SAIC's focus group experiences. The
categories included in the following discussion represent some of the most common ARRA-funded GPR
projects (water meter, stormwater, treatment, pipe), as well as a type of project that was not often
chosen for Green Project Reserve funding (drinking water storage).
3.4.1 WATER METER PROJECTS
Based on SAIC's categorization of green projects, 109 DWSRF projects and four CWSRF projects involved
installing or replacing water meters. Installing water meters where none were present was considered to
be categorical, but a business case was required to replace existing water meters. Many projects resulted
in installation of water meters that report wirelessly to the utility. Smart meters have wireless
transmitters that send water-use data multiple times per day to a central computer. These meters offer
real-time or near real-time tracking of water use.
The major environmental benefits of these meter installations are reduction in water loss and potential
reduction in household water usage, both of which result in decreased chemical, energy and source water
usage. Secondary environmental benefits include:
September 2013
36
-------
Utilities can use metering results to guide the capital investment project planning process by
focusing on the parts of the distribution that are experiencing the greatest water loss. This can
yield reduced water loss beyond what would otherwise be possible without the data obtained
from the smart meter system.
Reduced need for meter reader staff enables utilities to transfer staff to general distribution
system maintenance and other areas. More staff time is thus available to address water loss
issues.
Meter reading vehicle fleet is reduced. This results in less vehicular emissions, neighborhood
noise and gasoline usage. Funds that would otherwise be used to support the fleet can be
redirected to activities that directly result in water conservation.
Water meter projects were quickly able to meet shovel-ready status, as compared to projects that involve
intensive planning, such as water and wastewater treatment. The total amount of ARRA Green Project
Reserve spending on water meter projects under DWSRF was approximately $139.45 million. This is
substantially more than the amount spent on the second highest category - distribution pipes.
3.4.2 CWSRF PIPE PROJECTS
Of the 41 CWSRF pipe projects under ARRA Green Project Reserve, 12 were for the purpose of
rehabilitating or replacing existing sewers. The other 29 pipe projects involved miscellaneous types of
pipe such as laterals, force mains, interceptors, and recycled water pipes. Sewer rehabilitation or
replacement is typically done to reduce inflow and/or infiltration (I/I) of rainwater or groundwater into
sewers. Inflow and infiltration cause greater expenditures of energy and chemicals to convey and treat
the extra, unpolluted water in the sewers and treatment plant. I/I also is a major cause of SSOs. SSOs
cause violations of wastewater treatment plant permits and degrade water quality. The EPA guidance
document (EPA Region 8, 2010) and other sources state that sewer collection infiltration and inflow pipe
repair and replacement projects do not qualify for the Green Project Reserve except under extreme
conditions, such as when the pipe is under water. Only a few states provided Green Project Reserve
funding for sewer rehabilitation, perhaps due to this particular language. For instance, one of the focus
group states noted that they believed sanitary sewer rehabilitation was simply not eligible to qualify as a
green project.
Alabama did provide Green Project Reserve funding for sewer rehabilitation. A business case was
submitted to rehabilitate the City of Childersburg's sewer system. The business case indicated that
reduction of I/I through this project would result in an energy savings of 43.5 percent. Beyond that, an
estimated 40 percent of cost reduction would occur in avoided chemical use, pipeline repairs and other
activities. The human health benefits from improved water quality due to reduced sewer overflows was
not calculated in the business case, but would certainly add to the green value of such a project. This
example represents a powerful case that sewer I/I reduction can conserve energy equivalent to projects
that are categorically green. In later EPA guidance, the discussion of I/I reduction was changed to simply
indicate that a business case would be needed to prove that the project meets efficiency requirements of
at least 20 percent.
September 2013 37
-------
3.4.3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS
ARRA funded 183 green wastewater treatment projects involving each of the three major areas: water
efficiency, energy efficiency and innovative projects. During ARRA, 60 percent of the CWSRF Green Project
Reserve funding was awarded to green wastewater treatment projects. More projects involved innovative
technology than any other category of project, based on the amount of funding ($65 million).
The largest of the treatment projects was the City of Austin's Hornsby Bend Biosolids Plant (HBBP)
Upgrades. This project includes the refurbishment and upgrade of the liquid sludge receiving facilities, the
anaerobic digesters, the dewatering facilities and the digested sludge composting facilities as a
comprehensive program. The increased digester gas production from this project will serve as fuel for a
combined heat and power facility that is to be implemented in a separate project (also funded under
ARRA, through the Department of Energy). The entire project was considered to be innovative.
Expected benefits from the HBBP project include:
Provided a larger quantity of digester gas for a combined heat and power project, to reduce the
purchased electric power cost for HBBP.
Reduced the diesel fuel requirements for operation of the HBBP and the transport of biosolids to
off-site land application outlets.
Reduced round-trip truck transport mileage for hauling of biosolids to off-site locations.
Reduced chemical use.
Increased diversion of green waste from landfill disposal for use as a bulking agent in
composting, thereby reducing the methane production from landfilling green waste.
Other benefits including carbon sequestration, decreased carbon emissions from the breakdown
of composted and land-applied biosolids, and use of green building materials (fly ash).
3.4.4 STORMWATER PROJECTS
Stormwater projects were the most numerically common category of GPR projects funded by CWSRF
programs. Across all states, 194 stormwater projects were funded by ARRA. This constitutes 30 percent of
all CWSRF green projects. Stormwater projects are very cost-effective, as they accounted for only about
11 percent of all CWSRF ARRA funds spent. Beyond the primary benefits such as improved aquatic and
wildlife habitat and better management of water quality/quantity, stormwater projects have some unique
benefits because they are often implemented in neighborhoods where they:
Improve the environmental awareness of residents.
Allow residents to see the use and benefits from tax dollars.
Improve communities through beautifying formerly urbanized landscapes.
Increase neighborhood pride.
Enhance property values.
Specific examples of stormwater project benefits are identified earlier in this report for several of the
focus group states.
September 2013 38
-------
3.4.5 DRINKING WATER STORAGE PROJECTS
There were only 16 drinking water storage projects among the ARRA-funded green DWSRF projects. The
largest project in this category was for the City of Drexel, Missouri. This project included additional water
system improvement besides storage. Drexel had previously produced its own drinking water from a lake,
but the supply was barely adequate to support the population and was inadequate to sustain fire flows.
Prior to announcement of ARRA funding availability, the City had studied the options for increasing their
water supply, and had selected and designed the preferred option, which was connecting to the Tri-
County Water Authority (TCWA). The TWCA is a regional water supply source that utilizes a well field and
ground water softening plant. This project had been approved by voters and was truly shovel-ready. The
project included construction of a new supply main, pump station and elevated tank; the project also
called for internal distribution improvements. As a result of the project, the City now has the storage
needed to sustain pressure for fire flows, and the water supply is sufficient to allow the city to grow.
More typical storage projects were conducted by the New Hope Water Association in Mount Olive and
Glade Water Association in the City of Laurel, both in Mississippi. Both of these projects consisted of
construction of a new 100,000 gallon elevated water storage tank with associated appurtenances and
piping. Properly designed and operated storage tanks protect drinking water quality and ensure that
system pressures are adequate for both consumer use and fire flows.
3.5 SUMMARY OF BENEFITS/OUTCOMES
Table 19 provides a summary of the intended primary benefits and potential secondary benefits from
green projects that SAIC discovered during this project. The table summarizes benefits found in reports,
from focus group participants, literature reviews and ARRA document reviews, as well as SAIC's
experience.
TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS BY CATEGORY
No agriculture GPR projects were evaluated
for secondary benefits during this study.
Agriculture projects typically
involve irrigation. Green aspects
funded by ARRA included removal
of water diversions from a creek;
installation of a fish screen; and
replacement of unlined irrigation
canals with pipelines to conserve
water.
September 2013
39
-------
PROJECT TYPE
CSO
CSO projects are primarily
intended to reduce pollutants
entering surface waters from
combined sewers. The Green
Project Reserve aspects of these
projects are typically small 'green'
pieces of much larger CSO
projects.
CSO projects help the POTW meet
NPDES requirements for a Long
Term Control Plan and/or Nine
Minimum Controls.
Depending on the 'green' aspect of the
project, secondary benefits will be similar to
those described for Wastewater Collection
System Pipes.
Energy Generation
Energy generation projects vary,
but in terms of GPR projects they
are primarily designed to capture
solar or wind energy, or use bio-
fuels to replace conventional fuels.
Management of waste grease is greatly
improved when it is used to produce fuel.
Waste restaurant grease is diverted to
anaerobic digesters where it enhances
methane generation. The methane is captured
and used to produce energy or burned onsite
to offset the need for heating. Restaurants
containerize the grease rather than disposing
of it to landfills or sewers. Less grease enters
sewers, resulting in a decreased incidence of
sewer overflows and blockages. This results in
improvement of water quality and reduction
of human health impacts that could be caused
by contact with sewage.
Capture and use of bio-gas from landfills has a
positive effect on air quality by eliminating the
flaring (outside burning) of such gas.
Capturing landfill gas also enhances safety by
reducing the likelihood of fires and explosions.
Landfill gas is typically 50% methane and 50%
carbon dioxide. Converting the methane to
carbon dioxide through energy generation
results in reduced emission of methane, which
has more greenhouse gas warming potential
than carbon dioxide.
Land Application/
Reclaimed Water
Land application of treated
wastewater is often used as a
method to eliminate direct
discharges to waterways.
Water reclamation primarily
serves to reduce the need for
potable water for uses such as
irrigation.
Increased stream flow could benefit certain
aquatic organisms at times of low stream flow
(such as during a drought).
Spray irrigation of wastewater on crop fields
decreases use of surface water for irrigation,
resulting in increased stream flows.
Land application of wastewater results in
reductions of both conventional pollutants
September 2013
40
-------
PROJECT TYPE
and nutrients.
Pumps and Motors
The primary benefit of
replacement of existing pumps
and motors is to achieve greater
efficiency. More efficient pumps
reduce the amount of fuel needed
to achieve the same pumping
capacity.
VFDs are generally installed to
provide more even control of
wastewater pumping. A consistent
flow of wastewater into the
treatment plant allows for better
operation.
SAIC found no documented secondary
environmental benefits from replacement of
pumps and motors.
Installation of VFDs can prevent surges that
can lead to pipe breakage. Broken pipes
release untreated sewage into the
environment.
Use of VFDs results in longer pump life by
eliminating start/stop cycles.
VFDs conserve energy by automatically
adjusting the pumping rate based on the flow
rate. Thus, if flow is high, the VFDs enable
more water to be pumped, but low flows
result in reduced pump speed.
VFDs reduce the need for operators to travel
to pump stations to manually adjust pumping
rates. Thus, operators' time is freed for other
operation and maintenance tasks needed to
ensure system optimization. Vehicular and
fuel use is reduced.
SCADA
SCADA systems reduce energy use
by utilizing radio communications
to reduce the need for system
operators to drive to evaluate
remote system assets. Tank water
levels can be maintained at a
desired range, potentially reducing
energy use for pumping.
Environmental benefits include reduced
amount of truck travel (e.g., fuel emissions)
and improved operator understanding/control
of system.
Operators can respond more quickly to
abnormal events, which benefits human
health and safety.
Source Water
Green aspects of source water
projects funded by ARRA included
improvement of riparian corridor
health; increased efficiency of
hydro-generation; improvement of
drinking water quality; increased
water available for fire flows; and
installation of VFDs to reduce
energy use.
No source water GPR projects were evaluated
during this study.
Water Storage
Increase potable water availability.
Provide adequate volume and
pressure for fire flows.
Allows for use of electricity at non-peak times
for pumping.
Reduces pumping costs.
Allows for reduced pump sizing.
Reduces the need to build new power plants.
September 2013
41
-------
PROJECT TYPE
Stormwater
Stormwater projects vary greatly,
but in terms of GPR projects they
are primarily designed to reduce
pollutant discharges to surface
waters.
As GPR projects they are also
typically used to reduce the
volume of runoff to storm sewers
and combined sewer systems. This
reduces CSOs and the potential for
flooding.
Improvement of aquatic habitat.
Creation of wildlife habitat.
Reduction of stream bank erosion.
Creation of wild space within the urban
habitat improves human quality of life.
Allows community to connect with and learn
to appreciate nature.
Improves biodiversity within the urban habitat
by creating a diversity of natural habitats.
Provides opportunities for recreation.
Enhances property values.
Enhances community pride.
Natural infiltration into the ground recharges
aquifers and stimulates a natural habitat for
soil organisms.
Provides opportunity for the community to
see the positive results of ARRA projects on a
daily basis.
Provides a learning laboratory for local schools
and groups.
Wastewater
Collection System
Pipes
The primary benefits of repair or
replacement of collection system
pipes include reduction of SSOs
and compliance with NPDES
permit requirements.
Basement backups may be
targeted by some collection
system projects.
Street flooding issues prompt
some collection system projects.
Improved water quality results from fewer
SSOs.
Aquatic habitat is improved, and biodiversity
may increase as water quality increases.
Community pride is enhanced when repeat
sewage overflows are eliminated.
Property damage and resulting liability claims
against the utility are reduced.
Property values may improve.
Human health is improved because sewage no
longer backs up into homes.
Water and
Wastewater
Treatment
The water and wastewater
treatment projects implemented
under the Green Project Reserve
vary. These are typically small
'green' pieces of much larger
treatment plant projects.
Depending on the 'green' aspect of the
project, secondary benefits will be similar to
those described for Energy Generation, Pumps
and Motors, Wastewater Collection System
Pipes, and SCADA.
Treatment process efficiency may be
enhanced and pollutants reduced.
September 2013
42
-------
PROJECT TYPE
Water Distribution
Pipes
Replaced or repaired pipes reduce
water loss. This results in savings
in production costs, including
chemicals and energy used in
water treatment and distribution.
Reduced drain on aquifers and
watersheds results from less water
loss through the distribution
system.
Improved drinking water quality as a result of
new pipes (elimination of biofilms).
In some cases, elimination of need to develop
a new water source. Development of a new
water source (such as by damming a stream)
may negatively impacted aquatic or wildlife
habitat.
Increases available water to meet fire flows.
Water Meters
(including smart
meters)
New water meters more
accurately account for water
usage, thereby allowing the
agency to better recoup water
production costs from consumers.
Smart meters enable savings of
staff time and vehicle and fuel
usage formerly needed to read
meters manually.
Smart meters provide water consumers with a
better understanding of their consumption
habits from near-real-time feedback. This
enables consumers to make better water use
decisions, resulting in lowered water
consumption.
Ensuring that all customer water use is paid
for can put the utility in a better financial
position, enabling it to better operate and
maintain its assets and thus ensure that the
water provided to customers is always in
compliance with Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.
Provides a more equitable basis for customer
billing.
3.6 SUMMARY OF GREEN PROJECT RESERVE PROGRAM SUCCESSES
The following Green Project Reserve program successes are a summary of those the SAIC Team heard
through the focus groups or researched through the individual states' websites. The challenge of finding
shovel-ready green projects in the SRF programs led to innovative approaches from many states that are
worth mentioning. Many of these approaches have been adopted into their regular base programs and/or
show persistence and inspiration from staff. Many of these successes could be adopted or used as a
starting point for existing or new initiatives when integrating 'green' into their programs.
September 2013
43
-------
The need to identify green projects resulted in new types of project ideas coming into the SRF
system for the first time. During the focus group conducted with Iowa, CWSRF staff observed
that Iowa is an agricultural state and traditionally most of their non-point source projects are
agriculture related. Therefore, the state decided that they would need to solicit for green
projects for both CWSRF and DWSRF. The state issued a public announcement of the availability
of funds, and targeted discussions with associations and other groups involved in green
infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements and other environmentally innovative
activities. This proved to be an effective strategy. As a result of these solicitation efforts, two
hundred possible project ideas were received in early March 2009, resulting in 120 applications
received by late March (Iowa Department of Natural Resources Iowa Finance Authority, 2009).
Some of the green projects proposed as a result of the ARRA program were tabled for possible
post-ARRA funding. (Iowa Focus Group). Iowa staff stated that they received some applications
with interesting business cases for green projects, but the projects would have taken too long to
coordinate thus missing obligation deadlines, so they could not be funded under ARRA. However,
these projects could potentially be funded through future SRF financing; thus the Green Project
Reserve process provided a list of interesting projects for the state to consider.
State SRF staff found EPA's guidance to be useful to help their project applicants write their
business cases (Iowa Focus Group).
ARRA provided an opportunity for economically disadvantaged communities to receive funding
for GPR projects (Louisiana Focus Group). Louisiana SRFs had not traditionally provided funds to
economically disadvantaged communities. After ARRA came out, the state was able to focus its
project solicitation in these communities and received about 300 applicants. Similarly, prior to
ARRA, green projects were not funded in Louisiana. As a result of ARRA, the state has
incorporated green projects into its funding process.
More GPR projects were funded than were actually documented because once the 20 percent
requirement was met or exceeded; it was more cost effective to cease developing business cases
(Montana Focus Group). This success was partly due to the fact that Montana already had a
professionally structured marketing strategy for the SRF programs, including information on
compact disks (CDs) and application templates. Montana also specifically developed outreach
programs for GPR projects.
Some states capped ARRA funds to a maximum amount per project, thus spreading out the
funding as far as possible (Montana and North Carolina Focus Groups).
ARRA efforts were leveraged by partnering with outside entities (Oklahoma and New York Focus
Groups). New York's partnership with Syracuse University to fund and operate the Green Project
Exchange website enabled New York to market the SRF loan program, document project
results and make these studies available to a wide audience (New York Focus Group). This
approach contributed to New York's being able to identify and fund more green projects than
any of the other focus group state. Green projects in Oklahoma included partnerships with
Oklahoma State University, the Tulsa Library, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Residential water use conservation is attributed in part to ARRA Green Project Reserve funding,
which provided new meters and enabled residents to know how much water they are actually
using and its cost. Water use per resident has decreased by about 25 percent since the 2007
drought (North Carolina Focus Group).
September 2013 44
-------
3.7 SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED
The SAIC Team heard about many of the Green Project Reserve challenges and program and individual
successes from states, funding recipients and through review of literature and existing studies relating to
ARRA implementation. SAIC identified a few lessons learned listed below, and offer these as guideposts
for EPA and for states' existing SRF programs and any new initiatives for the existing programs.
ARRA projects that were 'categorically' green did not require a business case to document
expected environmental benefits, because the primary benefits were assumed (e.g., explicitly
framed as water or energy efficiency projects). This fact limited the collection of data on
expected benefits of projects (for instance, in the lEc analysis (Industrial Economics, Inc., 2011)).
It also reduced the number of projects for which expected benefits could potentially be
compared with observed benefits. Similarly, Iowa SRF staff observed that if they had it to do
again, they would require applicants to conduct more rigorous data collection both before and
after installation of replacement water meters to document actual energy savings.
Existing project priority scoring mechanisms in Intended Use Plans (lUPs) were not designed to
capture green project benefits that would address specific green priorities. The abbreviated
ARRA timeline allowed state SRF managers little time for specific marketing or outreach efforts
to promote green projects. Despite these problems, state SRF staff were able to identify projects
that met ARRA goals for green funding. States eventually modified their priority ranking systems
to incorporate Green Project Reserve elements in their scoring process. This will enable states to
identify and focus on the 'best' green projects (i.e., those expected to produce the greatest
benefits) in future SRF funding cycles.
The short time frame available to EPA to develop ARRA guidance for the state SRFs may have
resulted in less than optimal guidance in some areas. This may explain why projects were
concentrated in certain categories (i.e., water meters) while other categories had fewer projects.
Since that time, as the Green Project Reserve program has continued, better guidance is
available that may encourage more types of projects to be included under Green Project
Reserve.
An interesting question that could not be answered through analysis of the CBR and PBR
databases is whether certain categories of projects might produce more green benefits (primary
and secondary) than other categories. For instance, does a pipe project produce more or less
green benefits than a wastewater treatment plant upgrade? Is the level of green benefits
realized related to project cost? In order to answer such questions it would be necessary to more
carefully record the spending on the green portions of projects, and to evaluate and document
specific green outcomes of projects.
Of the project types funded by the ARRA Green Project Reserve, stormwater projects appear to
produce the most secondary benefits. This is because stormwater projects are often located
within communities, and directly impact residents and improve the urban habitat. In contrast,
energy generation projects involving solar or wind appear to have minor benefits beyond the
primary benefit of replacing conventional fuel. As funded by ARRA, such projects were too small
to have an impact on the utility's overall energy usage.
September 2013 45
-------
3.8 RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon completion of this study, SAIC formulated several recommendations based on the information
learned from this study, including the lessons listed above regarding the Green Project Reserve program
for EPA's consideration. These recommendations are not listed in any priority order and are offered for
consideration by EPA and states' existing programs and for any new initiatives in the existing programs.
Business case documentation was not required for 'categorical' projects. In addition, states were
not required to track environmental benefits after project completion. In the future, requiring
business case documentation as well as quantifying primary and secondary environmental
benefits, to the extent possible, for all completed projects would be useful in quantifying total
environmental benefits.
Some categories of projects have higher costs than others. If costs and environmental outcomes
were more carefully tracked and evaluated, it might be possible to learn whether project costs
are related to project outcomes for a given category of project. EPA could consider whether this
kind of analysis is beneficial. EPA could consider developing guidance on assessing secondary
benefits of green projects. Consideration of secondary benefits may make some proposed
projects more beneficial to the community, even if the cost of the project is higher than other
proposed projects with fewer secondary benefits.
If EPA wishes to track the environmental benefits from all ARRA-funded projects, the scope will
need to expand beyond those specifically identified by states as 'green.' Some states stopped
classifying projects as 'green' once they met the 20 percent Green Project Reserve requirement.
In addition, many projects not officially classified as 'green' provided primary, and likely
secondary, benefits.
New York provided an example of the advantages that can result from cooperation with outside
organizations. Documentation of project environmental outcomes in New York exceeds that of
the other states in the SAIC study. This is at least partly due to the state's partnership with
Syracuse University to help fund and operate the Green Project Exchange (GPE) at the
Environmental Finance Center at Syracuse University. Documentation of green project outcomes
would be enhanced if more states opted to engage in such collaborative efforts.
September 2013 46
-------
City of Carencro, Louisiana. (2009, June 11). CWSRF Pre-Application for Carencro to Replace Inefficent
Water Meters and Install an Automatice Water Reading System.
City of Owasso, Oklahoma. (Undated). Business Case: Creating wetland in Detention Pond: City of Owasso.
CWSRF Project No: ORF-09-0003-CW.
City of Youngsville, Louisiana. (2009, June 11). Youngsville Business Case.
EPA. (2010). Environmental Protection Agency Recovery Act Plan: A Strong Economy and a Clean
Environment.
EPA. (2012). ARRA Clean Water State Revolving Fund Green Project Reserve Report.
EPA Region 8. (2010, January 4). The Green Project Reserve - Questions and Answers.
Hanlon, J. A. (2009, March 2). Award of Capitalization Grants with Funds Appropriated by P.I. 111-5, the
"American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" of 2009. EPA.
Industrial Economics, Inc. (2011). Anticipated Benefits of the EPA ARRA Green Project Reserve Program;
Draft Report.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources Iowa Finance Authority. (2009, May 19). Supplemental Intended
Use Plans For the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
James A. Hanlon, D. O. (2009, July 1). Tracking and Reporting Requirements of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 for the State Revolving Fund Programs.
Perciasepe, E. A. (2013, April 24). Testimony Before the Senate Appropriations Committee. Washington,
DC.
Suzanne Schwartz, A. D. (2009, March 12). Memorandum: Award of Water Quality Management Planning
Grants with Funds Appropriated by P.L 111-5 the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009".
The Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2010). The Value of Green Infrastructure. A Guide to
Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits.
The Environmental Finance Center at Syracuse University. (2010). Study of the Green Innovations Grant
Program - 2010.
September 2013 47
-------
This page intentionally blank.
September 2013 48
-------
APPENDIX 1: ELIGIBILITY FOR GREEN PROJECT RESERVE OF SOME COMMON
CATEGORIES OF PROJECTS
from (EPA Region 8, 2010) and (Hanlon, 2009)
-------
This page intentionally blank.
-------
ELIGIBIILTY FOR GREEEN PROJECT RESERVE OF SOME COMMON CATEGORIES
OF PROJECTS
DRINKING WATER PROJECTS
WATER METER INSTALLATION PROJECTS
A project for the installation of water meters in an area with previously unmetered connections in a water
system is categorically green, with the simple caveat that such projects would also need to include a
commitment by the Public Water Supply to bill a metered rate based on consumption.
A project that proposes to replace existing water meters with newer water meters is not categorically
green, and a business case is required to identify and document any water and/or energy efficiency
improvements from such replacement. Because a metered system would have already seen its water
conservation benefits, installing new water meters would not affect the water efficiency of the system,
unless the system can demonstrate that the existing water meters are substantially malfunctioning as part
of a business case. Projects to replace existing water meters with automated meter reading systems also
require a business case, and such business cases can be based on water conservation benefits of replacing
substantially malfunctioning existing meters and or energy savings associated with reduced energy use for
transportation of employees to manually read meters.
WATER DISTRIBUTION PIPE PROJECTS
Some water line replacement projects may be considered eligible under the Green Project Reserve if they
make a sufficient business case for their efficiency benefits. This business case should provide specific
data documenting water loss (at a minimum, system-wide, or more localized data if available). The
business case should identify the length, C-values, pipe material, diameter, and provide a general
description of position within system, of pipes being rehabilitated/replaced, and should document that
the pipes to be replaced are the primary source of water loss (if such data is available). At a minimum, the
business case should provide specific information on the basis for rehabilitation/replacement of the pipes
covered in the project, such as pipe age and type, and any relevant break repair or other maintenance
records. This information should give a reasonable basis to expect that the pipes proposed for
replacement are likely to generate the largest return in leak reduction for the size of the project. Thus, a
pipe replacement project based essentially on useful life assessments, without more, is not eligible.
Finally, if energy efficiency is relevant to project qualification as 'green', the business case should provide
any available documentation regarding expected increases in energy efficiency. For such traditional
projects as pipe replacement, the state would have to document the business case in the project file to
demonstrate the substantial (not incidental) water or energy efficiency benefits of the project in order to
qualify the project or eligible portion to use Green Project Reserve funding.
September 2013 Appendix 1-1
-------
CLEAN WATER SRF PROJECTS
WASTEWATER PUMPING STATIONS
Modifications, retrofits or replacements of existing wastewater pumping systems that achieve a 20
percent increase in energy efficiency will categorically qualify for the Green Project Reserve. Projects that
do not achieve a 20 percent increase in energy efficiency can also count towards the Green Project
Reserve if they have a business case showing how the project significantly improves energy efficiency.
Business cases for wastewater pumping systems must include information that demonstrates that energy
efficiency is the primary goal of the project. They should clearly show: 1) that the most energy efficient
equipment is being used in the project, 2) that energy efficient design and operational considerations and
practices are followed, 3) the percent increase in energy efficiency and kWh saved, and 4) why further
energy efficiency improvements cannot be achieved.
VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES (VFDS)
Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) qualify under the CWSRF Green Project Reserve under certain
conditions of use. Many water system motors, especially older ones, turn at nearly constant speed.
However, much of the time, pumps operate at less than maximum design speed. Installing a VFD will
generally increase/reduce pump activity proportionally to increased/reduced flows. Such an upgrade
could generate significant energy savings, especially for utilities that experience great changes in flow.
VFDs will be considered categorically green provided that certain conditions of installation and use,
needed to ensure that they are always efficient, are met. Note that this means that the project must
provide adequate assurances or commitment to meet those conditions for the project to be green, but
that a business case is not required. Some VFDs can be manually bypassed, such as in an emergency
situation, making it possible to operate the pump without realizing the energy savings made possible by
the VFD. This is appropriate for temporary situations, but energy savings are not realized if the VFD is left
in bypass mode. Because VFDs must be operated properly in order to achieve 'green' savings, Green
Project Reserve qualification must include (1) adequate training for the utility's staff responsible for
operating this equipment (consistent with current operator certification requirements), and (2)
integration of current limiting and auto restart features into VFDs with intuitive controls.
AERATION SYSTEMS
Projects that improve the energy efficiency of wastewater aeration systems (such as aeration system
improvements or replacements) are categorically eligible for the Green Project Reserve if these changes
achieve a 20 percent net energy reduction. If the project does not achieve the 20 percent net energy
reduction, then a business case must show substantial energy savings.
September 2013 Appendix 1-2
-------
APPENDIX 2: CWSRF AND DWSRF GREEN PROJECTS BY FOCUS GROUP STATE
Note that differences in column headings are a result of the differences between the two databases
(CBRandPBR).
-------
This page intentionally blank.
-------
IOWA CWSRF GREEN PROJECTS
Osage, City of
Boone, City of
Boyden, City of
Cascade, City of
Baxter, City of
Charles City
Council Bluffs, City of
Pocahontas County DD
#65
Council Bluffs, City of
Dyersville, City of
Hedrick, City of
Maquoketa, City of
Newton, City of
Energy Generation
Pump and Motor
Pump and Motor
Pump and Motor
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
ARRA
AMOUNT
$572,000
$1,016,000
$116,000
$173,000
$1,279,000
$2,871,000
$945,000
$1,368,000
$375,000
$1,488,000
$303,000
$150,000
$605,000
TOTAL SRF
AMOUNT
$572,000
$1,016,000
$116,000
$173,000
$1,279,000
$2,871,000
$945,000
$1,368,000
$375,000
$1,488,000
$303,000
$150,000
$605,000
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST
$3,873,000
$1,016,000
$268,300
$173,000
$1,779,000
$2,871,000
$945,000
$2,072,472
$375,000
$1,488,000
$303,000
$150,000
$605,000
GREEN
AMOUNT
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,279,000
$2,871,000
$945,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
FUNDED
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
ENERGY
$572,000
$1,016,000
$116,000
$173,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$350,000
$1,488,000
$303,000
$150,000
$605,000
GREEN
WATER
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
GREEN
INNOVATIVE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,368,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-1
-------
IOWA DWSRF GREEN PROJECTS
PROJECT
Charles City
Meters
A AMOUNT
$100,000
GREEN
AMOUNT
$0
GREEN
INFRASTRUCTUR
FUNDED
$100,000
$0
$100,000
GREEN
INNOVATIVE
$0
Denison
Meters
$107,000
$0
$0
$0
$107,000
$0
Dubuque
Meters
$4,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$4,000,000
$0
Fairfax
Meters
$35,000
$0
$0
$0
$35,000
$0
Hudson
Meters
$46,000
$0
$0
$0
$46,000
$0
Ladora
Meters
$13,000
$0
$0
$13,000
$0
$0
Newton
Meters
$908,000
$0
$0
$0
$783,000
$0
Urbandale
Meters
$332,000
$0
$0
$0
$332,000
$0
Baxter
Pump and Motor
$68,000
$0
$0
$68,000
$0
$0
Boone
Pump and Motor
$50,000
$0
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
Muscatine
Pump and Motor
$93,000
$0
$466,000
$93,000
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-2
-------
LOUISIANA CWSRF GREEN PROJECTS
Baker, City of
Killian, Town of
Vinton, Town of
Youngsville, City of
Carencro, City of
Grand Isle, Town of
West Monroe, City of
Meters
Meters
Meters
Meters
Other
Stormwater
Treatment
$500,000
$110,777
$1,200,000
$750,000
$599,475
$749,991
$4,750,000
AMOUNT
$500,000
$110,777
$1,200,000
$750,000
$599,475
$749,991
$4,750,000
;Sr
$500,000
$110,777
$1,200,000
$750,000
$599,475
$749,991
$4,750,000
r:
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$749,991
$0
jREEN
STRUCTURE
FUNDED
$4,750,000
GREEN
ENERGY
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
WATER
$500,000
$110,777
$1,200,000
$750,000
$599,475
$0
$4,750,000
INNOVATIVE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-3
-------
LOUISIANA DWSRF GREEN PROJECTS
PROJECT I
Baker
Meters
RRAAMO
$2,000,000
$0
T
GREEN
FRASTRUCTURE GREEN
FUNDED
$o
WATER
$2,000,000
GREEN
INNOVATIVE
$0
$0
Bogalusa
Meters
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$2,000,000
Kinder
Multiple Categories
$298,500
$0
$134,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Oberlin
Multiple Categories
$385,000
$0
$19,275
$0
Ville Platte
Pipe
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$2,000,000
Natchitoches
Treatment
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$765,000
Westlake
Treatment
$870,000
$0
$43,958
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-4
-------
MONTANA CWSRF GREEN PROJECTS
BORROWER
Wisdom Water and Sewer
District
Dutton, Town of
Laurel, City of
Bozeman, City of
Townsend, City of
Glendive, City of
Columbia Falls , City of
Conrad, City of
Hamilton, City of
Lewis & Clark County SID
Red Lodge, City of
^5
Land
Application/Reclaimed
Water
Multiple Categories
Multiple Categories
Other
Pipes
Stormwater
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
AMOUNT
$282,880
$750,000
$750,000
$750,000
$749,529
$61,000
$750,000
$750,000
$750,000
$750,000
$492,043
AMOUNT
$282,880
$1,059,005
$1,778,000
$1,973,000
$749,529
$61,000
$1,182,178
$1,335,000
$1,467,000
$750,000
$492,043
F TOTAL
ROJECT
COST
$307,260
$1,659,005
$2,028,000
$1,973,000
$749,529
$66,000
$3,186,178
$5,532,927
$4,429,000
$1,029,000
$613,007
GREEN
AMOUNT
$282,880
$750,000
$0
$0
$0
$61,000
$0
$0
$0
$750,000
$0
GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
FUNDED
$329,000
$750,000
$48,000
$0
$61,000
$615,000
$386,000
$555,279
$750,000
$441,300
$0
$0
$60,000
$478,700
$749,529
$0
$0
$366,700
$405,354
$0
$492,043
WATER
$o
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,300
$149,925
$0
$0
INNOVATIVE
$o
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
$750,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-5
-------
MONTANA DWSRF GREEN PROJECTS
P-c,,*
Manhattan
Missoula
Troy
Virginia City
Belgrade
Billings
Cut Bank
Fort Benton
Glendive
Great Falls
Havre
Helena
Miles City
Missoula
Pablo
Superior
Troy
Meters
Meters
Meters
Meters
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
$230,000
$486,644
$263,000
$463,199
$750,000
$750,000
$750,000
$630,019
$357,000
$750,000
$350,000
$750,000
$750,000
$750,000
$750,000
$298,000
$500,000
^^ra
$o
$0
$263,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
K GREEN
RASTRUCTURE
FUNDED
$230,000
$572,400
$430,000
$750,000
$750,000
$750,000
$631,000
$357,000
$750,000
$350,000
$750,000
$750,000
$750,000
$298,000
$500,000
r;
$115,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$750,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$750,000
$0
$0
$115,000
$572,400
$0
$430,000
$750,000
$750,000
$0
$630,019
$357,000
$750,000
$350,000
$750,000
$750,000
$750,000
$0
$298,000
$500,000
INNOVATIVE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-6
-------
NEW YORK CWSRF GREEN PROJECTS
Buffalo Sewer Authority
Onondaga County
Albany County
Cayuga County Soil & Water
Conservation District
Ellenville, Village of
Glens Falls, City of
Jamestown Board of Public
Utilities
Johnstown, City of
Port Byron, Village of
Canastota, Village of
Cuba, Village of
Elba, Village of
Essex, Town of
Lyons, Village of
Medina, Village of
Patchogue, Village of
Rockland County
Ticonderoga, Town of
CSO
CSO
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Multiple Categories
Multiple Categories
Multiple Categories
Multiple Categories
Multiple Categories
Multiple Categories
Multiple Categories
Multiple Categories
Multiple Categories
$9,123,901
$10,900,000
$5,868,742
$6,277,801
$341,970
$1,334,134
$2,555,000
$6,044,132
$131,306
$5,141,495
$1,414,247
$275,119
$5,331,643
$546,575
$1,260,486
$5,439,441
$5,077,383
$3,621,100
^7 ^^K^B
$17,777,801
$20,000,000
$5,868,742
$6,277,801
$341,970
$1,334,134
$2,555,000
$6,044,132
$131,306
$11,165,950
$2,393,200
$275,119
$6,331,687
$546,575
$1,260,486
$9,668,812
$14,759,106
$5,615,923
^^^^Q
$17,887,801
$20,003,150
$8,558,325
$9,501,189
$379,967
$5,573,978
$3,293,995
$10,315,702
$145,896
$14,550,950
$2,393,200
$305,688
$11,155,663
$607,310
$1,400,540
$11,406,308
$14,759,106
$6,615,923
$45,000
$1,800,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
INFRASTRUCTURE
$470,000
$1,800,000
$5,868,742
$6,277,801
$341,970
$1,334,134
$2,555,000
$4,895,000
$131,306
$1,643,000
$536,397
$275,119
$1,331,643
$546,575
$1,260,486
$5,119,590
$125,270
$917,091
$175,000
$0
$5,868,742
$0
$341,970
$0
$2,555,000
$0
$131,306
$1,514,619
$536,397
$275,119
$1,271,643
$546,575
$1,260,486
$2,591,590
$125,270
$917,091
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$60,000
$0
$0
$604,000
$0
$0
INNOVATIVE
$250,000
$0
$0
$6,277,801
$0
$1,334,134
$0
$6,044,132
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,924,000
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-7
-------
Sackets Harbor, Village of
Weedsport, Village of
Williamson, Town of
Cedarhurst(V)
Lawrence, Village of
New York City Municipal Water
Finance Authority (NYCMWFA)
Speculator, Village of
Albion, Village of
Catskill, Town of
Nassau County
North Salem, Town of
Oyster Bay, Town of
Southeast, Town of
Tonawanda, Town of
Amherst, Town of
Chemung County Library District
Greenwood Lake, Village of
Greenwood Lake, Village of
Lindenhurst Memorial Library
Multiple Categories
Multiple Categories
Multiple Categories
Other
Other
Other
Other
Pipes
Pipes
Pipes
Pipes
Pipes
Pipes
Pump and Motor
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
AMOUNT
$4,351,012
$3,195,216
$664,793
$5,890,345
$6,342,629
$65,498,853
$10,933
$1,377,820
$181,672
$2,980,628
$2,838,809
$3,130,736
$1,084,920
$254,430
$129,328
$821,527
$18,477
$417,965
$198,111
TOTAL SRF
$8,200,000
$5,352,845
$664,793
$11,700,305
$12,484,568
$84,226,780
$10,933
$2,666,764
$217,296
$5,957,891
$5,031,704
$6,258,107
$1,942,898
$254,430
$129,328
$821,527
$18,477
$417,965
$198,111
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST
$9,005,000
$5,352,845
$738,659
$11,700,305
$13,649,064
$84,226,780
$12,148
$2,999,894
$217,296
$6,480,391
$19,089,946
$6,258,107
$5,912,119
$282,700
$143,698
$912,808
$20,530
$464,405
$220,124
GREEN
AMOUNT
$95,000
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$115,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$129,328
$821,527
$18,477
$417,965
$198,111
GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
FUNDED
$1,612,024
$1,037,586
$664,793
$80,385
$200,689
$56,151,190
$10,933
$115,500
$39,175
$3,366
$645,913
$3,366
$226,941
$254,430
$129,328
$821,527
$18,477
$417,965
$198,111
GREEN
$1,107,024
$977,586
$664,793
$80,385
$200,689
$56,151,187
$0
$0
$39,175
$3,366
$79,147
$3,366
$27,807
$254,430
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$395,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,933
$0
$0
$0
$566,766
$0
$199,134
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
GREEN
INNOVATIVE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-8
-------
Monroe County
New York City (NYC)
Department of Parks &
Recreation
(New York State) NYS Office of
Parks, Recreation & Historic
Preservation
North Tonawanda, City of
NYCMWFA
Onondaga County
Roeliff Jansen Community
Library (RJCL)
Rome, City of
Tioga County Soil and Water
Conservation District
Utica, City of
Brookhaven, Town of
Cooperstown, Village of
Granville, Village of
Greenport, Town of
Greenport, Village of
Greenville, Town of
Hoosick Falls, Village of
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
ARRA
AMOUNT
$4,715,123
$2,000,000
$556,200
$276,100
$14,637,485
$256,834
$320,000
$250,000
$736,131
$646,641
$5,162,252
$375,160
$1,195,214
$5,275,087
$3,815,595
$569,481
$92,914
TOTAL SRF
$4,715,123
$2,000,000
$556,200
$276,100
$14,637,485
$256,834
$320,000
$250,000
$736,131
$646,641
$10,153,989
$375,160
$1,418,864
$8,591,249
$5,335,086
$651,570
$92,914
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST
$7,446,921
$2,000,000
$618,000
$306,773
$14,637,485
$285,371
$437,824
$304,345
$857,108
$718,490
$10,153,989
$416,844
$1,418,864
$8,591,249
$5,335,086
$751,570
$103,238
GREEN
AMOUNT
$4,715,123
$2,000,000
$556,200
$276,100
$14,637,485
$256,834
$320,000
$250,000
$736,131
$646,641
$0
$0
$0
$112,206
$0
$0
$0
GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
FUNDED
$4,715,123
$0
$556,200
$276,100
$14,637,500
$256,834
$320,000
$250,000
$736,132
$646,641
$170,515
$375,160
$566,637
$1,958,926
$3,809,632
$84,705
$92,914
GREEN
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$170,515
$0
$566,637
$1,276,135
$1,983,487
$84,705
$92,914
n
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,000
$0
$0
$0
GREEN
INNOVATIVE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$375,160
$0
$564,585
$1,826,145
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-9
-------
Hudson, City of
Jasper, Town of
LaGrange, Town of
Middletown, City of
Millbrook, Village of
NYCMWFA
NYCMWFA
NYCMWFA
Oakfield, Village of
Ogdensburg, City of
Richfield Springs, Village of
Westchester County
Westchester County
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
AMOUNT
$6,072,567
$170,442
$405,900
$16,285,868
$196,650
$15,704,400
$27,010,500
$35,365,256
$135,000
$1,061,752
$4,364,329
$190,539
$24,402,492
TOTAL SRF
$11,409,393
$170,442
$405,900
$27,832,973
$196,650
$15,704,400
$27,010,500
$35,365,256
$135,000
$1,061,752
$5,570,650
$190,539
$45,876,873
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST
$12,230,436
$189,380
$451,000
$27,832,973
$218,500
$15,704,400
$27,010,500
$35,365,256
$150,000
$1,179,725
$5,570,825
$211,711
$45,876,873
GREEN
AMOUNT
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
FUNDED
$3,278,663
$170,442
$405,900
$3,950,103
$196,650
$1,827,361
$4,187,146
$7,051,000
$135,000
$1,061,752
$804,940
$190,539
$2,928,111
GREEN
$3,201,863
$170,442
$405,900
$4,271,911
$196,650
$1,827,361
$4,187,146
$7,051,000
$135,000
$1,061,752
$665,185
$190,539
$2,928,111
$76,800
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
GREEN
INNOVATIVE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$139,755
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-10
-------
NEW YORK DWSRF GREEN PROJECTS
Bath
Poughkeepsie
Pulaski
Saranac Lake
Schaghticoke
Syracuse
Syracuse
LaFargeville
Roxbury
Sharon Springs
Webster
Wurtsboro
Beacon
Troy
Annondale on Hudson
Energy Generation
Meters
Energy Generation
Meters
Meters
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Meters
Meters
Meters
Multiple Categories
Meters
Other
Other
Treatment
I
$437,400
$61,692
$585,000
$1,000,000
$75,000
$315,000
$438,543
$208,078
$347,267
$203,148
$23,730,887
$201,438
$233,100
$450,000
$1,590,825
GREEN
AMOUNT
$o
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
FUNDED
$23,333,333
ENERGY
$437,400
$0
$585,000
$0
$0
$315,000
$438,543
$0
$0
$0
$23,333,333
$0
$0
$0
$0
WATER
$0
$61,692
$0
$1,000,000
$75,000
$0
$0
$208,078
$347,267
$203,148
$0
$201,438
$233,100
$450,000
$0
INNOVATIVE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,590,825
September 2013
Appendix 2-11
-------
NORTH CAROLINA CWSRF GREEN PROJECTS
Raleigh, City of
Buncombe County
(Government)
Asheville, City of
Black Mountain, Town of
Burlington, City
Carolina Beach, Town of
Charlotte, City of
Charlotte, City of
Charlotte, City of
Fayetteville, City of
Fayetteville, City of
Highlands, Town of
Mecklenburg County
Raleigh, City of
Watauga County
Land
Application/
Reclaimed
Water
Other
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
ARRA
AMOUNT
$1,251,388
$3,000,000
$258,764
$377,085
$65,000
$1,686,234
$296,546
$778,081
$1,570,740
$464,503
$536,692
$746,517
$2,493,625
$279,517
$390,860
TOTAL SRF
AMOUNT
$1,251,388
$3,000,000
$258,764
$377,085
$ 65,000
$1,686,234
$296,546
$778,081
$1,570,740
$464,503
$536,692
$746,517
$2,493,625
$279,517
$390,860
TOTAL
COST
$1,251,388
$3,000,000
$258,764
$377,085
$ 65,000
$1,686,234
$296,546
$778,081
$1,614,683
$464,503
$536,692
$746,517
$2,493,625
$279,517
$390,860
n
$0
$0
$258,764
$377,085
$0
$1,686,234
$296,546
$778,081
$1,570,740
$464,503
$536,692
$746,517
$2,493,625
$279,517
$390,860
KREEN
TRUCTURE
FUNDED
$1,541,906
$3,000,000
$454,500
$412,840
$65,000
$2,300,000
$577,555
$2,194,900
$600,000
$557,000
$546,517
$2,576,000
$465,735
$580,000
ENERGY
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
WATER
$1,251,388
$0
$0
$0
$65,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
INNOVATIVE
$0
$3,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-12
-------
NORTH CAROLINA DWSRF GREEN PROJECTS
Project City
Albemarle
Butner
Bessemer City
Burlington
Graham
Greenville
Holly Springs
Roanoke Rapids
Spring Lake
Surf City
Thomasville
Cramerton
Goldsboro
Goldsboro
Montreal
Morganton
Murphy
Pollocksville
Princeville
«jmj
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Energy Generation
Meters
Meters
Meters
Meters
Meters
Meters
Meters
Meters
$196,818
$188,692
$87,278
$141,286
$160,996
$44,782
$67,067
$166,025
$70,298
$76,599
$118,709
$479,851
$492,000
$689,000
$220,901
$485,358
$658,325
$163,304
$307,648
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1
ln"e
$270,946
$235,565
$96,500
$101,400
$301,550
$57,848
$81,600
$218,325
$76,500
$123,596
$211,103
$320,840
$492,000
$689,000
$224,400
$573,800
$528,496
$200,783
$310,700
EG SZ
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$479,851
$492,000
$689,000
$220,901
$485,358
$658,325
$163,304
$307,648
$196,818
$118,692
$87,278
$141,286
$160,996
$44,782
$67,067
$166,025
$70,298
$76,599
$118,709
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-13
-------
Project Cit
Riegelwood
Meters
$100,255
$0
Green
astructure
Funded
$100,255
$0
$100,255
nnovative
$0
Rutherford College
Meters
$155,142
$0
$155,142
$0
$155,142
$0
Taylorsville
Meters
$204,000
$0
$204,000
$0
$204,000
$0
Warrenton
Meters
$365,142
$0
$371,030
$0
$365,142
$0
Gibsonville
Pipe
$122,596
$0
$160,000
$0
$122,596
$0
Sawmills
Pipe
$235,226
$0
$0
$235,226
$0
Asheboro
Pump and Motor
$396,388
$0
$510,000
$396,388
$0
$0
Carrboro
Pump and Motor
$284,658
$0
$284,658
$0
$0
Wilmington
Source Water
$2,716,357
$0
$3,000,000
$0
$0
$2,716,357
Ramseur
Treatment
$230,004
$0
$327,305
$0
$0
$230,004
Rocky Mount
Treatment
$495,727
$0
$448,800
$0
$0
$495,727
Smithfield
Treatment
$3,000,000
$0
$3,000,000
$0
$0
$3,000,000
September 2013
Appendix 2-14
-------
OKLAHOMA CWSRF GREEN PROJECTS
Central Oklahoma
Master Conservancy
District
Oklahoma Conservation
Commission
Oklahoma Conservation
Commission
Oklahoma Conservation
Commission
Owasso Public Works
Authority
Tulsa City-County Library
System
Duncan Public Utilities
Authority
Perkins Public Works
Authority
Stillwater Utilities
Authority
Sulphur Municipal
Authority
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
An
$1,131,765
$86,500
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,785,000
$202,800
$304,136
$2,000,000
$579,000
$2,000,000
rr ToT*rECT
$1,131,765
$ 86,500
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,785,000
$202,800
$340,000
$7,225,000
$1,875,000
$10,200,000
$1,131,765
$ 86,500
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,785,000
$202,800
$340,000
$7,225,000
$1,875,000
$10,200,000
AMOUNT
$1,131,765
$86,500
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$75,925
$202,800
$0
$110,000
$249,975
$0
L GREEN
FRASTRUCTU
RE FUNDED
$86,500
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$278,580
$68,000
$1,250,000
$249,975
GREEN GREEN GREEN
ENERGY WATER INNOVATIVE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$304,135
$1,140,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$233,973
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-15
-------
OKLAHOMA DWSRF GREEN PROJECTS
PROJECT C.TY
Enid
Sand Springs
Duncan
Stillwater
Meters
Meters
Multiple Categories
Multiple Categories
ARRA AMOUNT
$2,000,000
$1,709,326
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
GREEN
AMOUNT
$0
$0
$0
$0
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
FUNDED
$0
$1,590,000
$0
GREEN
$0
$0
$210,000
$300,000
WATER
$2,000,000
$1,689,000
$1,380,000
$1,700,000
GREEN
INNOVATIVE
$0
$0
$0
$0
September 2013
Appendix 2-16
-------
APPENDIX 3: GREEN PROJECT RESERVE GUIDE FOR STATE FOCUS GROUPS
-------
This page intentionally blank
-------
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE GUIDE FOR STATE FOCUS GROUPS - JULY 2012
OVERVIEW
Purpose of Evaluation
DESCRIPTION
The EPA is evaluating secondary environmental impacts of wastewater and
drinking water projects implemented through American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds. The primary goal is to capture information
related to successes, strategies and lessons learned. Results of this
evaluation may assist municipalities to better assess and predict all
environmental outcomes (primary and secondary) associated with potential
projects. This may help in prioritizing projects in the future according to their
anticipated environmental benefits. The evaluation is not intended to discuss
or address any sort of compliance or compliance-related issues.
Purpose of Focus Group
Method
Purpose of a focus group is to generate discussion amongst the participants
and to share points of view regarding the topics below. There are no wrong
answers or opinions. It is not important who says what but what gets said.
Topics
Secondary Outcomes (positive or negative impacts) of Drinking Water
Projects
Secondary Outcomes of Clean Water Projects
Magnitude of Outcomes
Factors that Influence Secondary Outcomes
How Secondary Outcome Prediction and Assessment Could be Improved
For each of the above topics, the facilitator will encourage discussion to
identify factors that helped or hindered implementation with regards to
policies, processes, procedures and challenges.
Process Overview (See
Attachment)
The following table "Focus Group Structure and Process" shows the general
agenda of the Focus Group discussion. The general discussion will take
approximately 2-2.5 hours with another half hour of introductions and wrap
up.
Participants Requested
6-8 participants
State staff who worked on the ARRA project(s) either from the technical
and contractual side who can discuss the processes or who were
impacted by the topics listed above
Focus Group Process
Unlike the typical focus group, there will be no electronic recordings or
double-sided mirrors with observers. For this session, a facilitator will guide
the discussion with 1-2 note takers. In some instances, there may be an
additional team member present.
September 2013
Appendix 3-1
-------
AGENDA/GUIDE FOR GREEN PROJECT RESERVE FOCUS GROUP
,AL EST. Tll\
2 - 3 HOURS
Background Information
(15 minutes)
Conducted by the group
moderator
Introduction of participants and focus group moderators
Purpose of the Focus Group
Overview of EPA ARRA Program Implementation
Overview of ARRA Evaluation Goals for Green Project Reserve projects
Overview of Focus Group Process
Discussion topics - secondary environmental benefits of wastewater
and drinking water projects, magnitude of secondary benefits, factors
that affect benefits, improvements to enable better prediction of
secondary benefits
Timing for each topic
Note taking
How the information will be used and reported
Select case studies/files for further review
Discussion topics
(est. total time 1.5 -2.5 hours,
approximately 20 minutes per
topic, including one 15-
minute break)
Environmental Outcomes: What secondary environmental outcomes
(positive and negative) are associated with GPR projects?
Outcomes Extent: What was the magnitude of those outcomes?
Factors Influencing Outcomes, such as Effect of Project Type: Did the
type of outcomes and their extent vary by type of project?
Lessons Learned: What information or documentation is available to
assist municipalities to better assess and predict all environmental
outcomes (primary and secondary) associated with potential projects?
Group moderator and note taker(s) will confer at the end of each topic and
clarify any information before moving to the next topic.
Summary and Close
(15 minutes)
Conducted by the group
moderator
The group moderator and note takerfs) will:
Summarize key points of each topic.
Review the next steps in the evaluation process and remind
participants how this information may be used and documented.
Thank the participants for their time and contribution to the
evaluation.
September 2013
Appendix 3-2
-------
APPENDIX 4: DESCRIPTIONS OF DATA FIELDS USED IN TABLES
[partially based on James A. Hanlon, 2009)
-------
This page intentionally blank.
-------
DESCRIPTIONS OF DATA FIELDS USED IN TABLES
(PARTIALLY BASED ON JAMES A. HANLON, 2009)
Total Green Amount - The total cumulative dollars of the identified ARRA funding for this project that will
be utilized for green infrastructure. The dollar amount reported cannot exceed the amount of ARRA
funding for the project.
ARRA Amount - The cumulative total dollar amount of ARRA funding for this infrastructure investment.
Green Energy Amount-The total amount identified by the state and project recipients to be spent on the
project or portion of the project that meets the requirements of green energy.
Green Water Amount - The total amount identified by the state and project recipients to be spent on the
project or portion of the project that meets the requirements of green water.
Green Innovative Amount - The total amount identified by the state and project recipients to be spent on
the project or portion of the project that meets the requirements of green innovative.
September 2013
Appendix 4-1
-------
This page intentionally blank.
September 2013 Appendix 4-2
------- |